DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/27/2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 12-20 have been amended. The objections to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 20210045278) in view of Forbes (US 20210092894 A1) and Huth (US 20180327112 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henry teaches a system for detecting damaged disk blades (Fig. 1, disk blades 46) on an agricultural implement (Fig. 1, implement 10), the system comprising:
a first load sensor mounted on the forward arm of the hanger and configured to generate data indicative of a first load being applied to the forward arm of the hanger (par. 31, “It should be further appreciated that the force sensor(s) 60 may be arranged between various components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56.”);
a second load sensor mounted on the aft arm of the hanger and configured to generate data indicative of a second load being applied to the aft arm of the hanger (par. 31, “It should be further appreciated that the force sensor(s) 60 may be arranged between various components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56.”);
and a computing system communicatively coupled to the first and second load sensors (Fig. 4, system controller 128), the computing system configured for:
determining a first magnitude of the first load being applied to the forward arm of the hanger based on the data generated by the first load sensor (par. 44, “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time.”);
determining a second magnitude of the second load being applied to the aft arm of the hanger based on the data generated by the second load sensor (par. 44, “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time.”);
identifying (par. 45, “the controller may 128 be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the disc blades 46 and/or ganged disc assembly 44 and compare the monitored sensor data 136 to monitored sensor data 136 received from sensor(s) 60 associated with second disc blades”).;
and initiating a control action in response to identifying (par 47, "the controller 128 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the controller 128 determines that one or more of the disc blades 46 are plugged.").
Although Henry teaches the controller determines the disk blades are plugged instead of damaged, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that both a plugged blade and a damaged blade would lead to an inefficient blade that requires more force to perform its function compared to a healthy blade. For example, Beck (US 20100126258) teaches that sharpness of knives effects the required force (abstract, “An arrangement for detection of the sharpness of chopper knives that can be moved relative to a shear bar includes a sensor that detects the effective cutting forces directly or indirectly and an evaluation arrangement connected to the sensor”). One would be able to predict a system would be able to determine if a blade was damaged by using a load sensor.
Henry fails to teach a disk blade assembly including a hanger having a forward arm and an aft arm, the disk blade assembly further including a first disk blade rotatably coupled to the forward arm and a second disk blade rotatably coupled to the aft arm.
However, Forbes teaches a disk blade assembly including a hanger (Fig. 4, disk hanger 102) having a forward arm and an aft arm (Fig. 4, pillow block assembly 112), the disk blade assembly further including a first disk blade rotatably coupled to the forward arm and a second disk blade rotatably coupled to the aft arm (Fig. 4, disk blades 36A and 36B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the disk assembly of Henry with the disk assembly in order to increase efficiency of the blades (Forbes par. 2-4). Henry also explicitly states that their invention “may also be utilized with any other ganged tool assembly including any other suitable ground engaging tools of a given agricultural implement 10” (Henry par. 28). Given Forbes’ disk blade assembly and Henry’s load sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable reason to try placing the sensors between (Forbes’ equivalent) “components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56” (par. 31). Given that Henry teaches the different locations the load sensors could be placed in order to sense the load of the blades, there would be incentive to try different locations. It would be reasonably expected that placing sensors on the forward or aft arm of a hangar would measure the load and would be anticipated to succeed (see MPEP 2143 I. E.).
Henry and Forbes fail to teach identifying which of the blades is damaged and only determines that one or the other is damaged without specifying which.
However, Huth teaches identifying which of the blades is damaged based on the determined first and second magnitudes (Fig. 21 steps 830 and 850).
Huth is directed towards an aircraft propeller with a plurality of blades rather than an agricultural equipment with disk blades. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determining a damaged blade using a sensor to measure force would be applicable to blades other than just in agricultural equipment. Huth teaches that a blade can be identified as damaged if the blade is experiencing a force different from the other blades and is above a predetermined threshold or tolerance (Fig. 800 step 830). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Henry in view of Forbes to identify which blade is damaged by comparing the load sensor magnitudes to a predetermined threshold. Comparing sensor data to a predetermined threshold is an obvious and well-known way to identify faults. Doing so would allow health of the blades to be monitored to provide early warnings of damage as well as determine when they need to be fixed (Huth par. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes and Huth teaches the system of claim 1. Henry further teaches a frame of the agricultural implement extends in a longitudinal direction between a forward end of the frame and an aft end of the frame (par. 22, "As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the implement 10 may include a frame 28. More specifically, the frame 28 may extend longitudinally between a forward end 30 and an aft end 32"), the frame further extending in a lateral direction between a first side of the frame and a second side of the frame (par. 22, "The frame 28 may also extend laterally between a first side 34 and a second side 36" par. 22, "The frame 28 may also extend laterally between a first side 34 and a second side 36");
Henry fails to teach the forward arm and the aft arm are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction; and the first disk blade is at least partially spaced apart from the second disk blade along the longitudinal direction and spaced apart from the second disk blade along the lateral direction relative to the frame.
However, Forbes teaches the forward arm and the aft arm are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction (see Fig. 4); and the first disk blade is at least partially spaced apart from the second disk blade along the longitudinal direction and spaced apart from the second disk blade along the lateral direction relative to the frame (see Fig. 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the disk assembly of Henry with the disk assembly in order to increase efficiency of the blades (par. 2-4).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes and Huth teaches the system of claim 1. Henry further teaches the control action comprises notifying an operator which of the agricultural implement the identified first disk blade or second disk blade is damaged (par. 47, "the controller 128 may be configured to notify the operator of the implement 10 that one or more disc blades 46 are plugged.").
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes and Huth teaches the system of claim 1. Henry further teaches the first disk blade comprises a first level disk blade and the second disk blade comprises a second level disk blade (par. 26, “the frame 28 is also configured to support a plurality of leveling blades 52”).
Regarding claim 12, Henry teaches a method for detecting damaged disk blades (Fig. 1, disk blades 46) on an agricultural implement (Fig. 1, implement 10), the agricultural implement including
receiving, with a computing system (Fig. 4, system controller 128), first load sensor data indicative of a first load being applied to the forward arm of the hanger (par. 31, “It should be further appreciated that the force sensor(s) 60 may be arranged between various components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56.”);
determining, with the computing system, a first magnitude of the first load being applied to the forward arm of the hanger based on the data generated by the first load sensor (par. 44, “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time.”);
receiving, with the computing system, second load sensor data indicative of a second load being applied to the aft arm of the hanger (par. 31, “It should be further appreciated that the force sensor(s) 60 may be arranged between various components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56.”);
determining, with the computing system, a second magnitude of the second load being applied to the aft arm of the hanger based on the data generated by the second load sensor (par. 44, “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time.”);
identifying (par. 45, “the controller may 128 be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the disc blades 46 and/or ganged disc assembly 44 and compare the monitored sensor data 136 to monitored sensor data 136 received from sensor(s) 60 associated with second disc blades”);
and initiating, with the computing system, a control action in response to identifying (par 47, "the controller 128 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the controller 128 determines that one or more of the disc blades 46 are plugged.").
Although Henry teaches the controller determines the disk blades are plugged instead of damaged, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that both a plugged blade and a damaged blade would lead to an inefficient blade that requires more force to perform its function compared to a healthy blade. For example, Beck (US 20100126258) teaches that sharpness of knives effects the required force (abstract, “An arrangement for detection of the sharpness of chopper knives that can be moved relative to a shear bar includes a sensor that detects the effective cutting forces directly or indirectly and an evaluation arrangement connected to the sensor”). One would be able to predict a system would be able to determine if a blade was damaged by using a load sensor.
Henry fails to teach a disk blade assembly having a hanger, the hanger including a forward arm and an aft arm, the disk blade assembly further including a first disk blade rotatably coupled to the forward arm and a second disk blade rotatably coupled to the aft arm.
However, Forbes teaches a disk blade assembly having a hanger (Fig. 4, disk hanger 102), the hanger including a forward arm and an aft arm (Fig. 4, pillow block assembly 112), the disk blade assembly further including a first disk blade rotatably coupled to the forward arm and a second disk blade rotatably coupled to the aft arm (Fig. 4, disk blades 36A and 36B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the disk assembly of Henry with the disk assembly in order to increase efficiency of the blades (Forbes par. 2-4). Henry also explicitly states that their invention “may also be utilized with any other ganged tool assembly including any other suitable ground engaging tools of a given agricultural implement 10” (Henry par. 28).
Henry and Forbes fail to teach identifying which of the blades is damaged and only determines that one or the other is damaged without specifying which.
However, Huth teaches identifying which of the blades is damaged based on the determined first and second magnitudes (Fig. 21 steps 830 and 850).
Huth is directed towards an aircraft propeller with a plurality of blades rather than an agricultural equipment with disk blades. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determining a damaged blade using a sensor to measure force would be applicable to blades other than just in agricultural equipment. Huth teaches that a blade can be identified as damaged if the blade is experiencing a force different from the other blades and is above a predetermined threshold or tolerance (Fig. 800 step 830). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Henry in view of Forbes to identify which blade is damaged by comparing the load sensor magnitudes to a predetermined threshold. Comparing sensor data to a predetermined threshold is an obvious and well-known way to identify faults. Doing so would allow health of the blades to be monitored to provide early warnings of damage as well as determine when they need to be fixed (Huth par. 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Forbes and Huth as applied above, and further in view of Dix (US 20210174488 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes and Huth teaches the system of claim 1. Henry fails to teach the control action comprises adjusting a ground speed of the agricultural implement.
However, Dix teaches the control action comprises adjusting a ground speed of the agricultural implement (claim 20, "the control action comprises adjusting at least one of a ground speed of the implement or notifying an operator of the implement of the impaired operating condition of the at least one component.").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Henry in view of Forbes and Huth to incorporate the teachings of Dix in order to make the component that has failed (the damaged blades) properly work in the field (par. 52).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Forbes, Plattner (US 11229153 B2), and Huth.
Regarding claim 18, Henry teaches a system for detecting proper disk blade soil penetration depth on an agricultural implement (Fig. 1, implement 10), the system comprising:
a first load sensor mounted on the forward arm of the hanger and configured to generate data indicative of a first load being applied to the forward arm of the hanger (par. 31, “It should be further appreciated that the force sensor(s) 60 may be arranged between various components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56.”);
a second load sensor mounted on the aft arm of the hanger and configured to generate data indicative of a second load being applied to the aft arm of the hanger (par. 31, “It should be further appreciated that the force sensor(s) 60 may be arranged between various components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56.”);
a computing system communicatively coupled to the first and second load sensors (Fig. 4, system controller 128), the computing system configured for:
determining a first magnitude of the first load being applied to the forward arm of the hanger based on the data generated by the first load sensor (par. 44, “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time.”);
determining a second magnitude of the second load being applied to the aft arm of the hanger based on the data generated by the second load sensor (par. 44, “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time.”);
identifying (par. 45, “the controller may 128 be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the disc blades 46 and/or ganged disc assembly 44 and compare the monitored sensor data 136 to monitored sensor data 136 received from sensor(s) 60 associated with second disc blades”);
and initiating a control action in response to identifying (par 47, "the controller 128 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the controller 128 determines that one or more of the disc blades 46 are plugged.").
Henry teaches the controller determines if the disk blades are plugged instead of the soil penetration depth by using the load sensor measurements. However, load sensor measurements can also be used to determine soil penetration depth.
Plattner teaches a system for detecting proper disk blade soil penetration depth on an agricultural implement, the system comprising a computing system configured to determine when the first or second disk blades are not at a selected soil penetration depth based on the determined first and second magnitudes (column 6 lines 32-46, “if the amount of down pressure applied by the cylinder 52 (or 106) is excessive, the down pressure will try to force the disk 22 farther into the planting surface resulting in excessive down pressure on the gauge wheel 56 and an increase in strain (e.g., due to deformation or slight bending), of the depth setting arm 58, which will be detected by the sensor 78 (e.g., a strain gauge). On the other hand, if the down pressure applied by the cylinder 52 (or 106) is insufficient to hold the disk 22 at the desired furrow cutting depth, there will be little to no down pressure on the gauge wheel 56 and therefore little or no strain in the depth setting arm 58 will occur and be detected by the sensor 78. If the amount of down pressure is appropriate, a minimum threshold of strain on the depth setting arm 58 will occur.”).
Plattner uses their system in order to correct the amount of down pressure used in order to fix the cutting depth of the soil (column 1 lines 38-60). Therefore, Plattner is able to determine the current penetration depth using the strain gauge. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henry to incorporate the teachings of Plattner in order to keep the selected penetration depth and to premature failure or wear of the implement (column 1 lines 26-37).
Both Henry and Plattner fail to teach a disk blade assembly including a hanger having a forward arm and an aft arm, the disk blade assembly further including a first disk blade rotatably coupled to the forward arm and a second disk blade rotatably coupled to the aft arm.
However, Forbes teaches a disk blade assembly including a hanger (Fig. 4, disk hanger 102) having a forward arm and an aft arm (Fig. 4, pillow block assembly 112), the disk blade assembly further including a first disk blade rotatably coupled to the forward arm and a second disk blade rotatably coupled to the aft arm (Fig. 4, disk blades 36A and 36B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the disk assembly of Henry with the disk assembly in order to increase efficiency of the blades (Forbes par. 2-4). Henry also explicitly states that their invention “may also be utilized with any other ganged tool assembly including any other suitable ground engaging tools of a given agricultural implement 10” (Henry par. 28). Given Forbes’ disk blade assembly and Henry’s load sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable reason to try placing the sensors between (Forbes’ equivalent) “components of the ganged disc assembly, such as between the hanger 58 and the toolbar 48 and/or gang shaft 56 or between the disc blade(s) 46 and the gang shaft 56” (par. 31). Given that Henry teaches the different locations the load sensors could be placed in order to sense the load of the blades, there would be incentive to try different locations. It would be reasonably expected that placing sensors on the forward or aft arm of a hangar would measure the load and would be anticipated to succeed (see MPEP 2143 I. E.).
Henry fails to teach identifying which of the blades is damaged and only determines that one or the other is damaged without specifying which.
However, Huth teaches identifying which of the blades is damaged based on the determined first and second magnitudes (Fig. 21 steps 830 and 850).
Huth is directed towards an aircraft propeller with a plurality of blades rather than an agricultural equipment with disk blades. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that determining a damaged blade using a sensor to measure force would be applicable to blades other than just in agricultural equipment. Huth teaches that a blade can be identified as damaged if the blade is experiencing a force different from the other blades and is above a predetermined threshold or tolerance (Fig. 800 step 830). This would be applicable to soil penetration depth as well. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Henry in view of Plattner and Forbes to identify which blade is at a soil penetration depth by comparing the load sensor magnitudes to a predetermined threshold. Comparing sensor data to a predetermined threshold is an obvious and well-known way to identify faults. Doing so would allow the blades to be monitored to provide early warnings (Huth par. 3).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Henry in view of Plattner, Forbes, and Huth teaches the system of claim 18. Henry fails to teach identifying which of the first disk blade or the second disk blade is not at the selected soil penetration depth comprises: determining a soil penetration depth of the first disk blade based on the determined first magnitude; comparing the determined soil penetration depth of the first disk blade to a predetermined depth threshold range; identifying that the first disk blade is not at the selected the soil penetration depth in response to the determined soil penetration depth of the first disk blade is falling within or falling outside of the predetermined depth threshold range; and initiating the control action in response to identifying that the first disk blade is not at the selected soil penetration depth.
However, Plattner teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as not being at the selected soil penetration depth comprises:
determining a soil penetration depth of the first disk blade based on the determined first magnitude (column 6 line 65 to column 7 line 2, “Strain in the depth setting arm is measured by the sensor 78 as the disk 22 is pulled through the planting surface and hydraulic pressure is reduced from the maximum level as appropriate based on feedback provided by the sensor 78.”);
comparing the determined soil penetration depth of the first disk blade to a predetermined depth threshold range (column 6 lines 46-49, “In this regard, as the disk 22 is pulled through the planting surface, strain measurements are taken and provided to the CPU, which in turn compares the measured strain values to a range of “no-action” values.”);
identifying that the first disk blade is not at the selected the soil penetration depth in response to the determined soil penetration depth of the first disk blade is falling within or falling outside of the predetermined depth threshold range (column 6 lines 54-58, “However, if the stain measurements are outside the range of “no-action” values, the CPU will cause an increase or decrease in pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 (or 106) to vary the amount of down pressure the cylinder 52 (or 106) applies on the disk 22 and the gauge wheel 56.”);
and initiating the control action in response to identifying that the first disk blade is not at the selected soil penetration depth (column 6 lines 54-58, “However, if the stain measurements are outside the range of “no-action” values, the CPU will cause an increase or decrease in pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 (or 106) to vary the amount of down pressure the cylinder 52 (or 106) applies on the disk 22 and the gauge wheel 56.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Henry in view of Plattner, Forbes, and Huth to further incorporate the teachings of Plattner in order to keep the selected penetration depth and to premature failure or wear of the implement (column 1 lines 26-37).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Henry in view of Plattner, Forbes, and Huth teaches the system of claim 18. Henry fails to teach identifying which of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as not being at the selected soil penetration depth comprises: determining a soil penetration depth of the second disk blade based on the determined first magnitude; comparing the determined soil penetration depth of the second disk blade to a predetermined depth threshold range; identifying that the second disk blade is not at the selected the soil penetration depth in response to the determined soil penetration depth of the second disk blade is falling within or falling outside of the predetermined depth threshold range; and initiating the control action in response to identifying that the second disk blade is not at the selected soil penetration depth.
However, Plattner teaches identifying which of the first disk blade or the second disk blade is not at the selected soil penetration depth comprises:
determining a soil penetration depth of the second disk blade based on the determined first magnitude (column 6 line 65 to column 7 line 2, “Strain in the depth setting arm is measured by the sensor 78 as the disk 22 is pulled through the planting surface and hydraulic pressure is reduced from the maximum level as appropriate based on feedback provided by the sensor 78.”);
comparing the determined soil penetration depth of the second disk blade to a predetermined depth threshold range (column 6 lines 46-49, “In this regard, as the disk 22 is pulled through the planting surface, strain measurements are taken and provided to the CPU, which in turn compares the measured strain values to a range of “no-action” values.”);
identifying that the second disk blade is not at the selected the soil penetration depth in response to the determined soil penetration depth of the second disk blade is falling within or falling outside of the predetermined depth threshold range (column 6 lines 54-58, “However, if the stain measurements are outside the range of “no-action” values, the CPU will cause an increase or decrease in pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 (or 106) to vary the amount of down pressure the cylinder 52 (or 106) applies on the disk 22 and the gauge wheel 56.”);
and initiating the control action in response to identifying that the second disk blade is not at the selected soil penetration depth (column 6 lines 54-58, “However, if the stain measurements are outside the range of “no-action” values, the CPU will cause an increase or decrease in pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 (or 106) to vary the amount of down pressure the cylinder 52 (or 106) applies on the disk 22 and the gauge wheel 56.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Henry in view of Plattner, Forbes, and Huth to further incorporate the teachings of Plattner in order to keep the selected penetration depth and to premature failure or wear of the implement (column 1 lines 26-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 13-17 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:
Claims 3 and 13 overcome the prior art of record because of the limitation “determining a load differential between the first magnitude and the second magnitude; and identifying which of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being is damaged based on the determined load differential”. While comparing load sensor magnitudes to a predetermined threshold is a well-known way of identifying which of the blades is faulty is well-known, using the differential between two magnitudes to identify which of the blades is damaged is not obvious. Claims 4-7 and 14-17 therefore contain allowable subject matter due to being dependent on claims 3 and 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights