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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 12/12/2025. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-20 have been amended. The drawing has been amended. The objections to the drawings and claim 2 and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
The amended claims 1, 12, and 18 are not obvious in view of the combination of Henry and Forbes because one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Henry with Forbes to teach determining a magnitude of a load specifically being applied to a forward or aft arm of a hanger.
The amended claims 1 and 12 are not obvious in view of the combination of Henry and Forbes because neither Henry or Forbes even implies identifying a first disk blade, coupled to a forward arm of a hangar, or a second disk blade, coupled to an aft arm of the hangar, as being damaged based on determined first and second load magnitudes.
The amended claim 18 is not obvious in view of the combination of Henry, Forbes, and Plattner because neither Henry or Forbes even implies identifying a first disk blade, coupled to a forward arm of a hangar, or a second disk blade, coupled to an aft arm of the hangar, as not being at a selected soil penetration depth based on determined first and second load magnitudes. Furthermore, Plattner is also silent as to identifying a specific disk of a pair of disks mounted to the same hangar as not being at a selected soil penetration depth.
Regarding argument A, Examiner disagrees that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Henry with Forbes to teach determining a magnitude of a load specifically being applied to a forward or aft arm of a hanger. Henry is silent as to the disk blade assembly as claimed in claim 1, and as such is silent as to determining the magnitude of a load specifically being applied to a forward or aft arm of a hanger. Henry does teach the load sensors can be placed in various positions on its disk blade assembly (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.”). Forbes, on the other hand, teaches the disk blade assembly as claimed in claim 1, but fails to mention any sensors. Examiner believes that 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.). Therefore, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Henry with Forbes to teach determining a magnitude of a load specifically being applied to a forward or aft arm of a hanger.
Regarding argument B, Examiner agrees that neither Henry or Forbes teaches identifying specifically which one of the two blades is damaged. However, Examiner disagrees that the current claim language requires this. Claim 1 recites, “identifying the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged based on the determined first and second magnitudes”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the system could identify that one of the disks is damaged, which would therefore teach identifying that the first or second disk blade is damaged. As amended claim 1 is written, the system would not need to necessarily point out which of the first or second disk blades is damaged.
Regarding argument C, Examiner agrees that Henry, Forbes, and Plattner all fail to teach identifying specifically which one of the two blades is not at a selected soil penetration depth. However, Examiner disagrees that the current claim language requires this for the same reasons as argument B.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 14, 5, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the phrase “identifying the first disk blade as being damaged in response to the determined load differential one of falling below or exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range” is confusing.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the phrase “identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the determined load differential the other of falling below or exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range” is confusing
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7, 9, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 20210045278) in view of Forbes (US 20210092894 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 the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged based on the determined first and second magnitudes (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 the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged (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.).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes 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 3, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the system of claim 1. Henry further teaches identifying the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged comprises: determining a load differential between the first magnitude and the second magnitude; and identifying the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged based on the determined load differential (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").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the system of claim 3. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: comparing the load differential to a predetermined differential threshold range; and identifying the first disk blade as being damaged in response to the determined load differential one of falling below or exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range, wherein falling below the predetermined differential threshold range indicates a negative differential and exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range indicates a positive differential (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to identify the disc blades 46 as plugged when a monitored value indicative of the draft load acting on the disc blades 46 differs from a second monitored value indicative of draft load acting on the second disc blades of the separate ganged disc assembly by a given threshold").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the system of claim 4. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the determined load differential the other of falling below or exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to identify the disc blades 46 as plugged when a monitored value indicative of the draft load acting on the disc blades 46 differs from a second monitored value indicative of draft load acting on the second disc blades of the separate ganged disc assembly by a given threshold").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the system of claim 4. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: determining a number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within a time period; and identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within the time period exceeds a minimum number of times (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to determine the disc blades 46 are plugged when the range of loads acting on the disc blades 46 differs (e.g., is less than by predetermined amount) from the range of loads acting on the second disc blades for a predetermined length of time").
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the system of claim 5. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: determining a number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within a time period; and identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within the time period exceeds a minimum number of times (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to determine the disc blades 46 are plugged when the range of loads acting on the disc blades 46 differs (e.g., is less than by predetermined amount) from the range of loads acting on the second disc blades for a predetermined length of time").
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the system of claim 1. Henry further teaches the control action comprises notifying an operator 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 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 the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged based on the determined first and second magnitudes (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 the at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged (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).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the method of claim 12. Henry further teaches identifying the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged comprises: determining a load differential between the first magnitude and the second magnitude; and identifying the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged based on the determined load differential (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").
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the method of claim 13. Henry further teaches comparing, with the computing system, the determined load differential to a predetermined differential threshold range; and identifying, with the computing system, the first disk blade as being damaged in response to the load differential one of falling below or exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to identify the disc blades 46 as plugged when a monitored value indicative of the draft load acting on the disc blades 46 differs from a second monitored value indicative of draft load acting on the second disc blades of the separate ganged disc assembly by a given threshold").
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the method of claim 14. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the determined load differential the other of falling below or exceeding the predetermined differential threshold range (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to identify the disc blades 46 as plugged when a monitored value indicative of the draft load acting on the disc blades 46 differs from a second monitored value indicative of draft load acting on the second disc blades of the separate ganged disc assembly by a given threshold").
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the method of claim 14. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: determining a number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within a time period; and identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within the time period exceeds a minimum number of times (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to determine the disc blades 46 are plugged when the range of loads acting on the disc blades 46 differs (e.g., is less than by predetermined amount) from the range of loads acting on the second disc blades for a predetermined length of time").
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes teaches the method of claim 15. Henry further teaches identifying at least one of the first disk blade or the second disk blade as being damaged further comprises: determining a number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within a time period; and identifying the second disk blade as being damaged in response to the number of times that the determined load differential falls below or exceeds the predetermined differential threshold range within the time period exceeds a minimum number of times (par. 45, "the controller 128 may be configured to determine the disc blades 46 are plugged when the range of loads acting on the disc blades 46 differs (e.g., is less than by predetermined amount) from the range of loads acting on the second disc blades for a predetermined length of time").
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Forbes as applied above, and further in view of Dix (US 20210174488 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Henry in view of Forbes 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 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 as applied above, and further in view of Plattner (US 11229153 B2).
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 the first disk blade or the second disk blade as (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 the first disk blade or the second disk blade as not being at the selected soil penetration depth (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.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Henry in view of Plattner and Forbes teaches the system of claim 18. Henry fails to teach 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; comparing the determined soil penetration depth of the first disk blade to a predetermined depth threshold range; identifying the first disk blade as not being 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 the first disk blade as not being 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 the first disk blade as not being 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 the first disk blade as not being 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 and Forbes 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 and Forbes teaches the system of claim 18. Henry fails to teach 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 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 the second disk blade as not being 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 the second disk blade as not being 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 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 the second disk blade as not being 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 the second disk blade as not being 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 and Forbes 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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