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 .
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 – 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 35 as being unpatentable over Mansur (US 5727636 A), in view of Hake (US 5409068 A), in view of Kowalchuk (US 20140196919 A1 ), and in view of Kovach (US 2020/0221627 A1)
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur discloses:
• A system for identifying broken shear pins on an agricultural implement,
See at least:
“there is illustrated a row cultivator 10 articulated to the rear of a prime mover 11 and employing a row following system 12 coupled to a tool bar 13. The tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15.”Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9-17.
“As soon as the tool 60 strikes an underground object, the bolt 70 fails as illustrated in FIG. 6.”Mansur, col. 4, ll. 19-23.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses the primary agricultural implement environment: a row cultivator having a tool bar, shanks, and tools. Mansur further discloses a shear-release failure event in which bolt 70 fails when tool 60 strikes an underground object. Mansur therefore provides the agricultural implement and broken shear-fastener context for A system for identifying broken shear pins on an agricultural implement,. To the extent the phrase “for identifying broken shear pins” is treated as limiting, Mansur supplies the shear-fastener failure event, while the automated identification functionality is rendered obvious by the later combination with Kowalchuk’s vibration-based controller logic and Kovach’s aft soil-profile localization.
• the system comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging shank assemblies, each ground-engaging shank assembly comprising:
See at least:
“The tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15.”
Mansur, col. 3, ll. 13-15.
“there is illustrated a tool 60 disposed on the lower end of a shank 61 (similar to the shank 14 of FIG. 1).”
Mansur, col. 4, ll. 7-10.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses shanks carried by the tool bar and carrying tools for soil-working cultivation. The plural shanks 14 carrying tools 15 correspond to a plurality of ground-engaging shank assemblies, and shank 61/tool 60 provides a detailed representative shank assembly. Thus, Mansur discloses the system comprising: a plurality of ground-engaging shank assemblies, each ground-engaging shank assembly comprising:.
• an attachment structure coupled to a frame of an agricultural implement;
See at least:
“The shank being retained in a clamp 62 employing U-shaped clamp plates 63 and 64, the clamp being coupled to a tool bar 65 about a horizontal pivot axis 66 on flange 67.”
Mansur, col. 4, ll. 10-14.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses clamp 62 and clamp plates 63 and 64 retaining the shank. The clamp is coupled to tool bar 65, which is a frame member of the agricultural implement. Thus, Mansur expressly discloses an attachment structure coupled to a frame of an agricultural implement;.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
• a shank portion pivotably coupled to the attachment structure at a pivot joint; and
• a shear pin at least partially extending through the attachment structure and the shank portion to prevent pivoting of the shank portion about the pivot joint;
• a first sensor configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;
• a second sensor configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
• a computing system communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor, the computing system configured to:
• determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data; and,
• identify a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake discloses:
• a shank portion pivotably coupled to the attachment structure at a pivot joint; and
See at least:
“A mounting plate is attached to the rear of each sweep support and a plurality of mounting bores are drilled near the rear of each mounting plate. A specially adapted parabolic ripper shank, with an attached deep penetrating ripper blade, is attachable to each plate via a pair of bolts which extend through respective ones of the mounting bores. One of the bolts in each pair is a pivot attachment bolt which provides a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing.”Hake, col. 2, ll. 18-28.
Rationale:
Hake expressly discloses a ripper shank attachable to a mounting plate by a pair of bolts, one of which is a pivot attachment bolt providing a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing. The mounting plate corresponds to the attachment structure, and the ripper shank corresponds to the shank portion. The pivot attachment bolt defines the pivot joint by which the ripper shank is pivotably coupled to the mounting plate.
When Mansur is modified with Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin structure, Mansur’s clamp 62 and clamp plates 63 and 64 serve as the attachment structure corresponding to Hake’s mounting plate/support-plate structure, because both structures retain the shank portion and couple the shank assembly to the implement frame/tool bar. Thus, Hake’s pivot-bolt/mounting-plate relationship is structurally compatible with Mansur’s clamp/tool-bar assembly and supplies the specific geometry of a shank portion pivotably coupled to the attachment structure at a pivot joint;
• and a shear pin at least partially extending through the attachment structure and the shank portion to prevent pivoting of the shank portion about the pivot joint;
See at least:
“The support plate 54 includes a plurality of bores 61 near the rear thereof which are sized to accommodate attachment bolts 62 and 63 of a ripper shank 64.”
Hake, col. 4, ll. 33-38.
“The bolt 62 is preferably a solid strengthened steel bolt while the bolt 63 is a shear pin.”Hake, col. 4, ll. 40-43.
“When conditions are not right for the shattering operation, the ripper shank 64 can be readily moved to a non-operative position, as shown in FIG. 5, by merely pulling the shear pin 63 and pivoting the shank 64 180 degrees about the mounting bolt 62.”
Hake, col. 4, ll. 56-60.
Rationale:
Hake expressly discloses that support plate 54 includes bores sized to accommodate attachment bolts 62 and 63 of ripper shank 64, and that bolt 63 is a shear pin. Because the pair of bolts attach the ripper shank to the support plate, a PHOSITA would understand that the bolts, including the shear pin, cooperate with both the support plate and the ripper shank. The claim requires only that the shear pin be “at least partially extending through” the attachment structure and shank portion. A bolt that secures the ripper shank to the support plate through corresponding mounting structure necessarily extends at least partially through, into, or across the coupled support-plate/shank interface.
Hake further discloses that the shank may be pivoted about mounting bolt 62 only after shear pin 63 is pulled. This directly supports the functional inference that shear pin 63 restrains pivoting during normal operation. Accordingly, Hake expressly discloses, or at minimum renders obvious, a shear pin at least partially extending through the attachment structure and the shank portion to prevent pivoting of the shank portion about the pivot joint.
Examiner Note: While Mansur discloses horizontal pivot axis 66 and bolt 70, Mansur describes the clamp/shank shear-release assembly at a more general level, in which bolt 70 holds the shank/clamp assembly to the tool bar and fails when the tool strikes an underground object. Mansur does not provide the same specific structural implementation recited above from Hake: a pivot bolt defining the pivot joint, a separate shear pin cooperating with the support plate and the shank portion, and that shear pin restraining pivoting until failure. Hake expressly supplies that more specific pivot-bolt/shear-pin geometry, making the modification of Mansur’s shank assembly with Hake’s structure a definite and specific implementation rather than an unnecessary or unexplained addition.
Motivation to Combine Mansur and Hake
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur and Hake before them, to modify Mansur’s row-cultivator shank/shear-release assembly by incorporating Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin mounting arrangement, in which a ripper shank is coupled to a mounting plate by a pivot attachment bolt and a shear pin. Mansur and Hake are analogous because both are agricultural implement references directed to ground-engaging shanks/tools and, at minimum, both are reasonably pertinent to the same particular problem faced by the inventor: protecting ground-engaging shanks from underground obstructions using release fasteners. Mansur discloses a row-cultivator shank held by a shear-release fastener that fails when the tool strikes an underground object, while Hake provides the more literal structural implementation of a shank attached to a support plate by a pivot bolt and a shear pin. The modification would have preserved Mansur’s obstruction-release function while providing a predictable pivot-joint/shear-pin structure that allows the shank to remain fixed during normal operation and pivot after shear-pin failure.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• a first sensor configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;
• a second sensor configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
• a computing system communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor, the computing system configured to:
• determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data; and,
• identify a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• a first sensor configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100…”
Kowalchuk, [0034].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses a vibration sensor mounted to an agricultural implement, including optional mounting on the tool bar, and generating a feedback signal corresponding to vibration magnitude or overall vibration. The tool bar is a frame member of the agricultural implement. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses a first sensor configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement.
• determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data; and,
See at least:
“The controller 100 receives feedback signals from a pressure sensor 114 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“If the magnitude of the vibration exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 100 increases the value of the reference signal output to the actuator 110…”Kowalchuk, [0033].
“Alternately, if the controller 100 detects that the magnitude of the vibration drops below a second predefined value, the controller 100 may decrease the value of the reference signal output to the actuator 110…”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“Each of the limits, first predefined value, and second predefined value are configurable by the operator via the user interface 74.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk does not expressly disclose determining shear-pin failure. However, Kowalchuk expressly discloses a controller receiving vibration sensor data, determining whether vibration exceeds a first predefined value, determining whether vibration drops below a second predefined value, and using operator-configurable values to execute controller routines. Thus, Kowalchuk is not limited to a single “exceeds maximum only” architecture; it teaches configurable upper and lower vibration thresholds and conditional controller action based on vibration data.
In the Mansur/Hake modified assembly, the shear pin restrains the shank in its normal ground-working position and fails when the tool encounters an obstruction, thereby changing the mechanical condition of the shank from restrained ground-working operation to released/pivoted operation. The claim does not require a particular vibration signature, a particular frequency-domain analysis, a particular high-amplitude spike, or a confirmed exclusive causal diagnosis. It only requires the computing system to determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data;.
A PHOSITA would understand that shear-pin failure in the Mansur/Hake assembly transitions the shank from a restrained ground-working condition to a released/pivoted condition, producing a change in the frame’s mechanical loading and vibration characteristics, whether as an impulse event at failure, a subsequent reduction in soil-engagement forces, or an anomalous vibration pattern from a freely pivoting shank. Such a change would be detectable by Kowalchuk’s configurable vibration-threshold architecture.
Under BRI, this limitation encompasses a computing system configured to generate a shear-pin-failure determination when vibration data satisfies a threshold condition correlated with known shear-release events. It does not require the computing system to prove that shear-pin failure is the only possible cause of the vibration anomaly, to rule out all other mechanical anomalies, or to perform a multi-cause diagnostic analysis before making the claimed determination. Kowalchuk’s configurable first and second predefined values provide the control-system architecture for correlating vibration behavior outside the expected operating behavior of a normally restrained shank with the known shear-release event taught by Mansur/Hake. Recalibrating Kowalchuk’s configurable thresholds or controller routine to detect a known shear-release event, rather than merely a general bounce condition, would have been a routine engineering implementation of the same disclosed threshold-comparison architecture, not an inventive redesign or change in principle of operation.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further modify the Mansur/Hake shear-pin shank assembly by incorporating Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor and controller-based threshold comparison logic so that vibration data outside the expected operating behavior of a normally restrained shank can be used to determine when a shear pin has failed during field operation. Mansur/Hake disclose the mechanical failure condition: a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear pin until an obstruction causes the shear pin or shear fastener to fail. Kowalchuk discloses the complementary sensing and control technique: sensing implement or row-unit vibration, using configurable first and second threshold values, and executing a controller routine when vibration satisfies a threshold condition. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to combine these teachings because vibration sensing provides a practical way to detect that a shear-release event has occurred without requiring the operator to stop the implement and visually inspect each shank, thereby reducing continued operation with a released shank and improving field-operation reliability.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• a second sensor configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
• a computing system communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor, the computing system configured to:
• identify a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses:
• a second sensor configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
See at least:
“the seedbed floor detection assembly may include a seedbed tool configured to ride along the seedbed floor… [and] a seedbed floor sensor configured to detect a position of the seedbed tool relative to the implement frame.”
Kovach, [0006].
“each detection assembly 100 may be configured to capture data indicative of the profile of the seedbed floor of the field across which the implement 10 is traveling.”Kovach, [0027].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a seedbed floor detection assembly including a seedbed floor sensor that detects a position of a seedbed tool relative to the implement frame, with that position being indicative of seedbed floor profile. Kovach further discloses that each detection assembly is positioned aft of ground-penetrating tools relative to the direction of travel. In the modified Mansur/Hake system, the shank portions are the ground-engaging tools that form or affect soil condition. Thus, Kovach supplies the aft soil-condition sensing architecture.
The claim recites a second sensor, not a separate discrete second sensor for each shank. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the “second sensor” may be a sensor assembly, sensor array, distributed sensing arrangement, or sensing system that generates data indicative of soil condition aft of each shank path. Kovach expressly discloses one or more detection assemblies, multiple seedbed floor sensor(s), and more than one detection assembly per frame section. Because Claim 1 later requires identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin, a PHOSITA implementing Kovach’s aft soil-profile sensing in the Mansur/Hake system would have had a specific reason to associate the aft detection assemblies, sensor regions, or profile outputs with respective shank paths rather than merely with broad frame sections. This per-shank association is a predictable scaling of Kovach’s per-assembly seedbed-profile sensing architecture to the number and lateral positions of the shank assemblies being monitored.
• a computing system communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor, the computing system configured to:
See at least:
“The controller 100 receives feedback signals from a pressure sensor 114 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 (e.g., via the communicative link 216). Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses the controller communicatively coupled to the first sensor, namely vibration sensor 65. Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 communicatively coupled to the second sensor, namely seedbed floor sensor(s) 126, via communicative link 216. Combining these two controller teachings into a single computing system or coordinated controller architecture would have been obvious because both references already use controller-based agricultural implement monitoring and sensor-feedback processing. In the combined system, the computing system receives the first sensor data to determine whether a shear-release failure event occurred and receives the second sensor data to localize the affected shank path. Thus, the combined system renders obvious a computing system communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor, the computing system configured to:.
• identify a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126… [and] analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor. Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“the controller 210 may be configured to determine a first seedbed profile based on data received from the seedbed floor sensor 126 of the first detection assembly 100 and a second seedbed profile based on data received from the seedbed floor sensor 126 of the second detection assembly 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed… at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”Kovach, [0047].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s), determining one or more seedbed floor profiles, associating each profile with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s), and associating vertical profile variation with the locations of the detection assemblies. Kovach also expressly contemplates three or more seedbed floor profiles. Kovach does not expressly disclose failed shear-pin identification. However, in the combined system, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to associate Kovach’s aft profile sensors, sensor regions, or profile outputs with respective Mansur/Hake shank paths because the design objective is to determine which shank path is no longer being worked normally after a shear-pin failure is detected.
A shank released from its normal ground-working position after shear-pin failure would no longer work the soil in the same manner as properly restrained shanks, thereby producing a localized aft soil-condition or profile difference along that shank path. The second sensor data would therefore be used to identify the location of the failed shank by detecting which aft shank path exhibits the abnormal soil condition. For multiple simultaneous failures, Kovach’s per-profile association supports independent identification because each profile is associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s); when the sensor profiles or sensor regions are associated with respective shank paths, each failed shank path can be independently identified from its corresponding abnormal aft profile data.
The “in response to” sequencing is rendered obvious by the combined teachings. Kowalchuk already teaches a conditional trigger-response controller pattern: when vibration crosses a configured threshold, the controller executes a routine. Kovach teaches controller processing of seedbed floor sensor data to determine one or more profiles. It would have been obvious to use the vibration-based shear-pin failure determination as the trigger for the soil-profile localization routine because the first sensor answers whether a failure event occurred, while the second sensor answers where the resulting abnormal soil condition occurred. This sequencing reduces false-positive location determinations from ordinary soil-profile variation, because ordinary soil variation alone would not trigger failed-shank localization unless the first sensor had first indicated the shear-release failure condition. It also avoids unnecessary localization processing when no failure event has been detected.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further modify the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk agricultural implement system by incorporating Kovach’s aft seedbed-floor sensing and controller-based profile analysis so that, after the vibration sensor indicates that at least one shear pin has failed, the controller can use location-correlated aft soil-profile data to identify the particular ground-engaging shank assembly or assemblies associated with the failed shear pin or pins. The modification is technically compatible because Mansur/Hake’s ground-engaging shanks create or alter soil along respective shank paths, Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor and configurable threshold controller identify the occurrence of abnormal implement operation associated with shank release, and Kovach’s aft seedbed-floor sensors identify localized seedbed-profile variation at known sensor/profile locations behind ground-penetrating tools. A PHOSITA would have had a specific reason to combine these teachings because vibration sensing identifies that an abnormal shear-release event occurred but does not identify which shank failed, while aft soil-profile sensing provides location-correlated information indicating which shank path is no longer being worked normally. The combination predictably improves fault localization, reduces unnecessary manual inspection, reduces false-positive localization during ordinary soil variation, and improves continued field-operation reliability.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly disclose the following additional limitations of Claim 2:
• wherein, when determining when the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to:
• determine a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
• compare the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• wherein, when determining when the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to:
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program, stored in memory 72, to monitor and, if necessary, reduce the magnitude of vibration.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine…”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 executing a stored program to monitor vibration magnitude, receive a vibration-magnitude feedback signal from vibration sensor 65, read a preset maximum vibration magnitude, compare the feedback signal to the preset value, and execute a routine when the feedback signal exceeds the preset value. Kowalchuk does not expressly disclose shear-pin failure. However, as established for Claim 1, in the Mansur/Hake modified shank assembly, shear-pin failure changes the shank from a restrained ground-working condition to a released/pivoted condition. Under BRI, wherein, when determining when the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to: is rendered obvious by configuring Kowalchuk’s disclosed controller 70 to use its vibration-magnitude threshold routine as the failure-detection logic for the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event.
• determine a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100…”
Kowalchuk, [0034].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65…”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65 mounted on the agricultural implement, including optional mounting on tool bar 18, which is a frame member. Kowalchuk [0034] is relied upon to show that vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted to the tool bar and may provide a signal corresponding to overall implement vibration. Kowalchuk [0031] is relied upon for controller 70’s vibration-magnitude processing routine. Thus, the mapping does not require treating controller 70 and controller 100 as the same controller; rather, it relies on Kowalchuk’s disclosed vibration sensor architecture and threshold-processing teachings as collectively rendering obvious the claimed computing-system functionality. Kowalchuk further discloses that controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses or renders obvious determine a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;.
• compare the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The preset value may be entered, for example, by an operator via the user interface 74 and stored in memory 72. At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to vibration magnitude, reads a preset value corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude, and compares the feedback signal to the preset value. Kowalchuk further discloses that the preset value may be entered by an operator and stored in memory 72. Because the threshold value is preset and stored in memory before the comparison operation, the preset maximum vibration magnitude corresponds to a predetermined vibration threshold value. Accordingly, Kowalchuk expressly discloses compare the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value.
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
See at least:
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine…”Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses determining that the vibration feedback signal exceeds a preset maximum vibration value or first predefined value and executing a controller routine when that condition occurs. Kowalchuk does not expressly state that the threshold-exceedance condition is a shear-pin-failure determination. However, in the modified Mansur/Hake system, the shear pin restrains the shank in its normal ground-working position and fails when the shank encounters an obstruction. A PHOSITA would understand that a shear-pin failure can produce an abnormal vibration-magnitude increase, impulse, or shock event because the loaded ground-engaging shank transitions abruptly from a restrained condition to a released/pivoted condition, changing the mechanical loading transmitted from the shank assembly to the implement frame. Thus, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to configure Kowalchuk’s disclosed threshold-exceedance routine so that, when the determined vibration magnitude of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value correlated with a known shear-release event, the computing system determines that the shear pin has failed.
Because Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor may be provided on each row unit or, alternatively, as a single sensor on the implement/tool bar, a PHOSITA would have understood that the disclosed architecture supports detecting an abnormal vibration event associated with at least one ground-engaging shank assembly, whether by localized row-unit sensing or by overall frame vibration sensing. Recalibrating Kowalchuk’s preset vibration threshold or controller routine to detect a known shear-release event, rather than a general excessive-bounce condition, would have been a routine engineering implementation of the same disclosed threshold-comparison architecture.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 2
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the computing system determines a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data, compares the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value, and determines that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the determined magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the complementary sensing and computing technique of determining vibration magnitude from vibration-sensor feedback, comparing that vibration magnitude to a preset maximum vibration value, and executing a controller routine when the vibration magnitude exceeds the preset value. Kovach completes and preserves the parent Claim 1 diagnostic architecture by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing for location identification after the failure event is determined, so the dependent Claim 2 threshold comparison operates within the same two-stage diagnostic sequence: vibration data determines that a failure event occurred, and aft soil-condition data localizes the failed shank.
The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the application of a known vibration-threshold detection technique to a known agricultural shank failure condition. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to apply Kowalchuk’s predetermined vibration-threshold logic within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system because the threshold comparison provides a predictable and configurable way to detect abnormal vibration magnitude associated with a shear-release event, while retaining the Claim 1 diagnostic sequence in which the first sensor detects the failure event and the second sensor localizes the failed shank. Setting or recalibrating the predetermined vibration threshold for the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event would have been routine optimization of a known threshold-based controller, rather than an inventive redesign or a change in principle of operation.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes the system of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitations of Claim 3 are not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein, when determining when the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to:
• determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
• compare the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined amplitude threshold value; and
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• wherein, when determining when the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to:
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 receiving vibration data, reading a preset maximum vibration magnitude, comparing the vibration feedback signal to the preset value, and executing a controller routine when the vibration feedback signal exceeds the preset value. Kowalchuk does not expressly disclose shear-pin failure. However, as established by Mansur and Hake, shear-pin failure changes the shank from a restrained ground-working condition to a released/pivoted condition. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein, when determining when the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to: is rendered obvious by configuring Kowalchuk’s disclosed controller 70 to use its vibration-threshold routine as the failure-detection logic for the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event.
• determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100 on the air drill 16 and/or the controller 70 in the tractor 12.”Kowalchuk, [0034].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65…”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, mounted on the agricultural implement and configured to detect vibration magnitude or bounce. Kowalchuk [0034] is relied upon to show that vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted to the tool bar and may provide a signal corresponding to overall implement vibration. Kowalchuk [0031] is relied upon for controller 70’s vibration-processing routine. Thus, the mapping does not require treating controller 70 and controller 100 as the same controller; rather, it relies on Kowalchuk’s disclosed vibration sensor architecture and threshold-processing teachings as collectively rendering obvious the claimed computing-system functionality.
Kowalchuk does not expressly use the word “amplitude” in the cited excerpts. However, a PHOSITA would have understood that an accelerometer-generated vibration signal has an amplitude, and that determining vibration “magnitude” from first sensor data includes or renders obvious determining an amplitude of the vibration signal, such as peak amplitude, peak-to-peak amplitude, or RMS amplitude. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, an amplitude of vibrations is a measurable vibration magnitude derived from the first sensor data. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration magnitude processing and, at minimum, renders obvious determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data.
• compare the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined amplitude threshold value; and
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The preset value may be entered, for example, by an operator via the user interface 74 and stored in memory 72. At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 70 receives a feedback signal corresponding to vibration magnitude, reads a preset value corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude, and compares the feedback signal to the preset value. Kowalchuk further discloses that the preset value may be entered by an operator and stored in memory 72. Because the value is preset and stored before the comparison operation, the preset maximum vibration magnitude is predetermined. To the extent Claim 3 recites a predetermined amplitude threshold value, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kowalchuk’s preset maximum vibration magnitude as an amplitude threshold value, because amplitude is a conventional and predictable measure of vibration magnitude derived from accelerometer data. Accordingly, Kowalchuk expressly discloses or renders obvious compare the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined amplitude threshold value; and.
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
See at least:
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses determining that the vibration feedback signal exceeds a preset maximum vibration value or first predefined value and executing a controller routine when that condition occurs. Kowalchuk does not expressly state that the threshold-exceedance condition is a shear-pin-failure determination, and Kowalchuk does not expressly use the word “amplitude” in the cited excerpts. However, in the modified Mansur/Hake system, the shear pin restrains the shank in its normal ground-working position and fails when the shank encounters an obstruction. A PHOSITA would understand that shear-pin failure can produce an abnormal vibration-amplitude increase, impulse, or shock event because the loaded ground-engaging shank transitions abruptly from a restrained condition to a released/pivoted condition, changing the mechanical loading transmitted from the shank assembly to the implement frame.
Thus, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to configure Kowalchuk’s disclosed threshold-exceedance routine so that, when the determined amplitude of the frame vibrations exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value correlated with a known shear-release event, the computing system determines that the shear pin has failed. Because Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor may be provided on each row unit or, alternatively, as a single sensor on the implement/tool bar, a PHOSITA would have understood that the disclosed architecture supports detecting an abnormal vibration event associated with at least one ground-engaging shank assembly, whether by localized row-unit sensing or by overall frame vibration sensing. Recalibrating Kowalchuk’s preset vibration threshold or controller routine to use an amplitude-based threshold for a known shear-release event would have been a routine engineering implementation of the same disclosed threshold-comparison architecture.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 3
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the computing system determines an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data, compares the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined amplitude threshold value, and determines that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the determined amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the complementary sensing and computing technique of detecting vibration magnitude from vibration-sensor feedback, comparing that vibration magnitude to a preset maximum vibration value, and executing a controller routine when the vibration magnitude exceeds the preset value. Kovach completes and preserves the parent Claim 1 diagnostic architecture by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing for location identification after the failure event is determined, so the dependent Claim 3 amplitude-threshold comparison operates within the same two-stage diagnostic sequence: vibration data determines that a failure event occurred, and aft soil-condition data localizes the failed shank.
The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the application of a known vibration-threshold detection technique to a known agricultural shank failure condition. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to implement the threshold comparison using vibration amplitude within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system because amplitude is a conventional measurable characteristic of a vibration signal generated by an accelerometer or vibration sensor, and an amplitude threshold provides a predictable and configurable way to detect abnormal vibration associated with a shear-release event. Setting or recalibrating the predetermined amplitude threshold for the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event would have been routine optimization of a known threshold-based controller, rather than an inventive redesign or a change in principle of operation.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The system of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitations of Claim 4 are not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data,
• the computing system is configured to:
• determine a soil dimension profile
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement
• based on the second sensor data;
• compare the soil dimension profile
• to a predetermined soil dimension profile
• for each ground-engaging shank assembly;
• and identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• when the soil dimension profile falls below
• the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze / process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) and analyzing/processing that data to determine one or more seedbed floor profiles. In the combined system, this soil-profile analysis is performed after Kowalchuk’s vibration-based failure determination indicates that a shear-release event occurred. Thus, Kovach discloses or renders obvious the computing-system functionality used wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
• based on the second sensor data,
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 (e.g., via the communicative link 216).”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126. In the combined system, those seedbed floor sensor(s) correspond to the claimed second sensor. Therefore, the location-identification functionality is based on the second sensor data,.
• the computing system is configured to:
See at least:
“For instance, the controller 210 may include a look-up table(s), suitable mathematical formula, and/or algorithms stored within its memory 214 that correlates the received data to the seedbed floor profile(s).”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210, memory 214, look-up tables, mathematical formulas, and/or algorithms for correlating received sensor data to seedbed floor profiles. Thus, Kovach discloses the relevant computing-system configuration recited by the computing system is configured to:.
• determine a soil dimension profile
See at least:
“Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze / process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 determines one or more profiles of the seedbed floor from received sensor data. A seedbed floor profile is a soil dimension profile under broadest reasonable interpretation because it represents the vertical dimension, height, depth, contour, or shape of the soil/seedbed floor. Therefore, Kovach discloses determine a soil dimension profile.
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
See at least:
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
“if the implement 10 is configured as a cultivator or ripper, the implement 10 may include a plurality of rows or ranks of ground penetrating shanks.”
Kovach, [0024].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that each detection assembly is positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools. Kovach further discloses that the implement may be a cultivator or ripper having rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks. In the modified Mansur/Hake system, the claimed shank portions are the ground-engaging, ground-penetrating tools. Thus, positioning Kovach’s seedbed floor detection assemblies aft of those shank portions discloses or renders obvious a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly.
Although Kovach does not expressly state that one seedbed floor profile is assigned to each claimed shank assembly, Kovach discloses one or more detection assemblies, profiles associated with sensor data, and multiple laterally spaced detection assemblies. A PHOSITA implementing Kovach’s profile-sensing architecture in the Mansur/Hake system for failed-shank localization would have had a specific reason to associate sensor regions, detection assemblies, or profile outputs with respective shank paths so that a soil dimension profile is determined aft of each ground-engaging shank assembly.
• relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement
See at least:
“the implement 10 may be configured to be towed along a forward direction of travel 12…”Kovach, [0020].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a forward direction of travel 12 and positions the seedbed floor detection assembly aft of the ground-penetrating tools relative to that direction. Therefore, Kovach expressly discloses relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement.
• based on the second sensor data;
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze / process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 receives data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 and analyzes/processes that received data to determine one or more seedbed floor profiles. Therefore, Kovach discloses based on the second sensor data.
• compare the soil dimension profile
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles to determine a differential between such profiles.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 compares determined seedbed floor profiles. Because the seedbed floor profile corresponds to the claimed soil dimension profile, Kovach expressly discloses compare the soil dimension profile.
• to a predetermined soil dimension profile
See at least:
“the predetermined threshold used by the controller 210 to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles may be selected to prevent the controller 210 from initiating control action(s) when only minor differences exist between the seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0049].
“the predetermined threshold may be a differential between the determined seedbed floor profiles that is great enough to be indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204.”
Kovach, [0049].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a predetermined threshold used by controller 210 when comparing determined seedbed floor profiles, where the threshold is selected to distinguish minor differences from profile differences significant enough to indicate poor seedbed quality or the need for adjustment. Kovach does not expressly use the phrase “predetermined soil dimension profile.” However, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s predetermined profile-threshold comparison by comparing the measured soil dimension profile behind each shank path to a predetermined expected soil dimension profile, stored reference profile, calibrated normal profile, or minimum acceptable profile for that shank path.
This rationale relies on Kovach [0049] for the predetermined aspect, not on a dynamically computed real-time average. A stored or calibrated expected profile/threshold for each shank path would have been a predictable implementation of Kovach’s disclosed predetermined threshold-based profile comparison, particularly where the diagnostic objective is to identify the shank path that is no longer producing the expected soil profile after a shear-pin failure event.
• for each ground-engaging shank assembly;
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“the implement 10 may include first and second seedbed floor detection assemblies 100, with the detection assemblies 100 being spaced apart from each other along the lateral direction 24.”Kovach, [0047].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses profile association with sensor data, laterally spaced detection assemblies, and three or more seedbed floor profiles. A PHOSITA seeking to identify each failed shank location in the Mansur/Hake system would have had a specific reason to associate each detection assembly, sensor region, or profile output with a corresponding shank path. Therefore, Kovach renders obvious profile comparison for each ground-engaging shank assembly.
• and identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
See at least:
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that determined profile differentials are associated with the locations of the detection assemblies. In the combined system, where detection assemblies, sensor regions, or profile outputs are associated with respective shank paths, the location of the abnormal profile corresponds to the location of the failed shank. Thus, Kovach renders obvious identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
• when the soil dimension profile falls below
See at least:
“when the differential between the first and second seedbed floor profiles exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions to address the differential.”
Kovach, [0047].
“Such minor variations may be expected and are generally not indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s)…”
Kovach, [0049].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses threshold-based profile anomaly detection. Kovach frames the anomaly as a differential exceeding a predetermined threshold. Claim 4 recites a below-threshold condition. In the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system, a failed shear pin releases the corresponding shank from its normal ground-working position, causing that shank to stop forming the expected soil condition. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s same thresholding principle as a lower-bound threshold: the relevant fault condition is detected when the soil dimension profile falls below the expected or minimum acceptable profile associated with normal shank operation.
• the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
See at least:
“the predetermined threshold may be a differential between the determined seedbed floor profiles that is great enough to be indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204.”
Kovach, [0049].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a predetermined threshold used to identify profile differences significant enough to indicate poor seedbed quality or a need for adjustment. In the combined system, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold corresponding to the minimum expected soil profile produced by a properly restrained shank. When the measured aft profile falls below that threshold, the system identifies the corresponding shank location as having a failed shear pin. This is a predictable application of Kovach’s disclosed profile-threshold anomaly detection to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin failure environment.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 4
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the computing system determines a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel, compares the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile for each ground-engaging shank assembly, and identifies the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor failure-detection portion of the parent diagnostic sequence by using vibration data to determine that a shear-release event has occurred. Kovach provides the complementary aft soil-profile sensing and controller-based profile comparison technique for determining where an abnormal soil profile exists behind ground-penetrating tools.
The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the application of a known seedbed/soil-profile thresholding technique to a known agricultural shank failure condition. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to apply Kovach’s profile-determination and profile-comparison logic within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system because vibration sensing identifies that a shear-release failure event occurred, but aft soil-profile sensing identifies which shank path is no longer producing the expected soil condition. This directly advances a recognized agricultural implement design goal: enabling the operator or control system to identify the specific failed shank without stopping the implement and visually inspecting the entire field unit. Setting a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each shank path would have been routine calibration of a known profile-monitoring controller, and using a below-threshold condition to indicate a failed or lifted shank would have predictably localized the failed shank while reducing false positives from ordinary soil-profile variation.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The system of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitations of Claim 5 are not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the computing system is further configured to
• initiate a control action
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• wherein the computing system is further configured to
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program, stored in memory 72, to monitor and, if necessary, reduce the magnitude of vibration.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 executing a stored program and executing a routine when vibration feedback exceeds a preset value. Controller 70 corresponds to a computing system under broadest reasonable interpretation because it executes a stored program in memory and performs controller-based monitoring and response functions. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses the computing-system predicate recited by wherein the computing system is further configured to.
• initiate a control action
See at least:
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
controller compares the feedback Kowalchuk, [0031].
“the controller 70 is configured to adjust the speed of the tractor 12 as a function of the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 generates a reference signal 77 to an actuator 78, which controls the speed of the tractor 12…”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 may, for example, override the speed commanded by the operator … and reduce the value of the reference signal 77 output to the throttle linkage, thereby reducing the speed of the tractor 12.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 executing a routine to adjust a command for an operating parameter when the vibration feedback signal exceeds a preset value. Kowalchuk further discloses specific examples of the resulting control action, including adjusting tractor speed, generating a reference signal to actuator 78, modifying the reference signal output to actuator 78, overriding the speed commanded by the operator, and reducing tractor speed. These are controller-initiated operating-parameter adjustments and therefore constitute control actions under broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses initiating a control action.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural shank system with Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor, controller-based threshold-comparison logic, and controller-action framework so that the computing system can detect an abnormal shear-release event and initiate a corresponding control action during field operation. Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical shear-pin failure environment, and Kowalchuk provides the complementary vibration-based sensing, controller logic, and operating-parameter control response. The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: using a controller that already responds to abnormal vibration conditions by initiating operating-parameter adjustments in an agricultural implement environment where a shear-pin failure produces abnormal implement operation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitation of Claim 5 is not explicitly disclosed:
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses:
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
See at least:
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
“As such, when the differential between the first and second seedbed floor profiles exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions to address the differential.”
Kovach, [0047].
“the predetermined threshold used by the controller 210 to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles may be selected to prevent the controller 210 from initiating control action(s) when only minor differences exist between the seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0049].
“the predetermined threshold may be a differential between the determined seedbed floor profiles that is great enough to be indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204.”
Kovach, [0049].
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle / implement 10/12 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to automatically adjust one or more operating [parameters] of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204 when the determined seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0051].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that a determined seedbed floor profile differential is indicative of profile variation at the locations of the detection assemblies. Kovach further discloses initiating one or more control actions when that location-correlated profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold, including notifying the operator and automatically adjusting operating parameters. Kovach therefore supplies a controller-response framework tied to an identified location-correlated soil-profile anomaly, rather than merely an undifferentiated implement-wide event.
Kovach does not expressly disclose a shear pin or failed shear pin. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system, Kowalchuk’s vibration-based sensing determines that a shear-release event has occurred, and Kovach’s aft seedbed-profile sensing identifies the location-correlated soil-profile anomaly behind the affected shank path. The location-correlated profile data is the direct causal input to the control-action decision in the combined system because the control action is initiated only after the profile data identifies the affected shank path, rather than merely after a generic vibration event. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to condition the control action on the location-identification step, rather than only on the earlier vibration-threshold event, because acting after location identification provides more precise diagnostic information and allows the control action to be targeted to the confirmed failed-shank location.
The phrase at least one ground-engaging shank assembly is satisfied because the combined system need only identify one failed shank location to trigger the control action. Kovach’s location-correlated profile analysis supports identifying at least one abnormal profile location, and, when the corresponding sensor region or detection assembly is associated with a respective shank path in the Mansur/Hake system, the identified abnormal profile location corresponds to the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin. Associating each detection assembly, sensor region, or profile output with a respective shank path is an obvious spatial design implementation for a multi-shank agricultural implement, particularly in view of Mansur’s tool bar carrying multiple shanks. Accordingly, the combination renders obvious initiating the control action when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 5
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the computing system initiates a control action when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor failure-detection and controller-action framework by using vibration data to determine that an abnormal shear-release event has occurred and by initiating controller routines in response to detected abnormal operating conditions. Kovach provides the complementary aft soil-profile sensing, location-correlated profile analysis, and examples of control actions initiated after a threshold-detected profile anomaly is identified.
The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the application of known controller-response logic to a known agricultural shank failure condition. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to initiate a control action once the failed-shank location is identified because merely detecting a failure event without initiating any response would leave the implement operating with a known failed shank. Acting after the location-identification step, rather than only after the earlier vibration-threshold event, provides a more targeted and useful response: the operator or controller can respond to the confirmed location of the failed shank, reduce unnecessary broad implement adjustments, and avoid treating ordinary vibration anomalies as confirmed shank failures. Initiating a control action after localization predictably improves reliability, reduces unnecessary continued operation with a failed shank, allows prompt operator or controller response, and preserves the two-stage diagnostic sequence of the parent claim: vibration data determines that a failure event occurred, and aft soil-profile data identifies where the failed shank is located.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The system of claim 5, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitations of Claim 6 are not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the control action comprises
• notifying an operator of the agricultural implement
• of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses:
• wherein the control action comprises
See at least:
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold. In general, such control action(s) may be associated with or otherwise intended to reduce or otherwise address the determined seedbed floor profile differential.”Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 may initiate one or more control actions when a seedbed floor profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold, and that such control actions are associated with or intended to address the determined profile differential. Thus, Kovach discloses the control-action predicate recited by wherein the control action comprises.
• notifying an operator of the agricultural implement
See at least:
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle / implement 10/12 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“the controller 210 may be configured to transmit instructions to the user interface 218 … instructing the user interface 218 to provide a notification to the operator of the implement / vehicle 10/204 (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator)…”Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses notifying the operator of the vehicle/implement when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold. Kovach further discloses transmitting instructions to user interface 218 to provide a visual or audible notification or indicator to the operator of the implement/vehicle. Because Kovach’s implement is an agricultural implement, this expressly discloses notifying an operator of the agricultural implement.
• of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
See at least:
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle / implement 10/12 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that determined seedbed floor profile differentials are indicative of variation at the locations of the detection assemblies, and that each profile may be associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s). Kovach also expressly discloses notifying the operator when the profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold. Kovach does not expressly disclose a failed shear pin or a notification that literally states the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system, the location-correlated seedbed profile anomaly identified by Kovach is used after the vibration-based shear-release determination supplied by Kowalchuk to identify the corresponding failed shank path.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for the operator notification to include the location information already determined by the controller because the purpose of the Claim 1 and Claim 5 system is not merely to indicate that some abnormal condition exists, but to identify the location of the failed shank and initiate a useful response. Providing the operator with the location of the failed shank would have been a predictable and practical implementation of Kovach’s operator notification, because notifying the operator only that a profile differential exists, while withholding the associated location data already determined by the controller, would provide less useful diagnostic information and would still require unnecessary inspection. Thus, Kovach, as applied in the combined system, renders obvious notifying the operator of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
The term “each” is satisfied because Kovach’s per-profile/per-sensor association supports location-correlated monitoring of multiple detection assemblies, and the combined system associates those detection assemblies, sensor regions, or profile outputs with respective shank paths. When more than one failed-shank location is identified, including each identified location in the operator notification is an obvious extension of Kovach’s notification framework and preserves the location-identification functionality of the parent system.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 6
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor failure-detection and controller-action framework by using vibration data to determine that an abnormal shear-release event has occurred and by initiating controller routines in response to detected abnormal operating conditions. Kovach provides the complementary aft soil-profile sensing, location-correlated profile analysis, and operator-notification control action.
The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the application of a known operator-notification response to a known agricultural shank failure condition. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to notify the operator of the failed-shank location because merely initiating a generic control action or generic alert would not give the operator the most useful diagnostic information already available from the system. Since the combined system determines which shank path corresponds to the failed shear pin, including that location in the operator notification would have predictably improved maintenance response, reduced unnecessary inspection of unaffected shanks, reduced downtime, and allowed the operator to take targeted corrective action. This preserves the parent diagnostic sequence: vibration data determines that a failure event occurred, aft soil-profile data identifies where the failed shank is located, and the control action notifies the operator of that location.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The system of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitation of Claim 7 is not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20.”
Kowalchuk, [0029].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65 as the sensor used to detect vibration or bounce in an agricultural implement and expressly identifies the vibration sensor as an accelerometer. In the Claim 1 combination, Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor is the claimed first sensor. Therefore, Kowalchuk expressly discloses wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 7
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor implementation by expressly teaching a vibration sensor, such as an accelerometer, for detecting vibration or bounce of the agricultural implement. Kovach completes the parent Claim 1 diagnostic architecture by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing used to localize the failed shank after the vibration-based failure determination.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to use Kowalchuk’s accelerometer-based vibration sensor within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach system because an accelerometer is a known and predictable sensor for generating vibration data from an agricultural implement frame or row unit. Using an accelerometer for the first sensor would have been the predictable use of a known sensor according to its established function, while preserving the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence in which first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event and second sensor data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The system of claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitation of Claim 8 is not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses or renders obvious:
• wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
See at least:
“the seedbed tool 114 may be configured to ride along or otherwise contact a floor of a seedbed created by the implement 10 as the implement 10 is being moved through the field, thereby allowing the seedbed tool 114 to follow the contour or profile of the seedbed floor.”Kovach, [0033].
“as the seedbed tool 114 is moved across a portion of the seedbed floor 116 that includes vertically oriented variations in its profile … the seedbed tool 114 may raise or lower relative to the frame member 30 as the tool 114 follows the profile of the seedbed floor 116.”Kovach, [0033].
“the seedbed floor sensor 126 may correspond to any other suitable sensor or sensing device configured to detect the position of the seedbed tool 114. For instance, the seedbed floor sensor 126 may correspond to an accelerometer, a linear potentiometer, a proximity sensor, and / or any other suitable transducer (e.g., ultrasonic, electromagnetic, infrared, etc.) that allows the position of the pivot arms 104, 106 to be directly or indirectly detected.”
Kovach, [0037].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a seedbed floor detection arrangement that tracks the contour or profile of the seedbed floor and uses seedbed floor sensor 126 to detect position information corresponding to that profile. Kovach [0033] supplies the soil/seedbed profile-detection context, while Kovach [0037] supplies the open-ended sensor-substitution framework by teaching that seedbed floor sensor 126 may be any suitable sensor or sensing device, including proximity, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, infrared, or other suitable transducers. Kovach does not expressly use the phrase “vision-based sensor,” and Kovach [0033] does not expressly disclose a camera. However, the cited disclosures render the claimed wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor obvious.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s seedbed floor sensing function using a vision-based sensor, such as a camera, optical sensor, or depth-vision sensor, because Kovach’s disclosed function is to obtain position/profile information indicative of the contour, height, depth, or shape of the seedbed floor. Vision-based and optical sensing were known sensing modalities in agricultural implement monitoring for observing surface position, contour, row/field features, and soil-surface characteristics. Thus, using a vision-based sensor would have been a natural and predictable implementation of Kovach’s “any suitable sensor or sensing device” teaching, particularly in view of Kovach’s express listing of non-contact sensing alternatives such as proximity, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, and infrared transducers.
The substitution would have involved using one known sensing modality in place of another known sensing modality to perform the same function: generating data indicative of the aft soil/seedbed condition so that the controller can determine a profile. Under KSR, substituting a known vision-based sensor for Kovach’s disclosed suitable sensor/transducer alternatives would have yielded predictable results, namely non-contact acquisition of soil-profile information behind the shank path. Thus, Kovach renders obvious wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 8
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the system established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides vibration-based detection of the shear-release event. Kovach provides the aft seedbed/soil-profile sensing architecture and expressly teaches that the seedbed floor sensor may be implemented using suitable alternative sensing devices or transducers for detecting position/profile information. A PHOSITA would have had a specific reason to use a vision-based sensor in Kovach’s aft soil-profile sensing arrangement because vision-based sensing would provide non-contact observation of the soil condition behind the shank path, allowing the controller to determine whether the aft soil profile indicates that a shank is no longer working the soil normally.
The modification reflects the predictable substitution of one known sensing modality for another known sensing modality to obtain soil-profile information. Using a vision-based sensor would have been technically compatible with Kovach’s profile-determination controller architecture and would have predictably supported the parent diagnostic sequence: vibration data determines that a shear-release event occurred, and vision-based aft soil-condition data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 9,
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur discloses:
• An agricultural implement,
See at least:
“there is illustrated a row cultivator 10 articulated to the rear of a prime mover 11 and employing a row following system 12 coupled to a tool bar 13.”
Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9-13.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses a row cultivator, which is an agricultural implement. Thus, Mansur expressly discloses An agricultural implement,.
• comprising:
See at least:
“The tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15.”
Mansur, col. 3, ll. 13-15.
Rationale:
The term comprising: is an open-ended transitional term. Mansur satisfies this transitional language because Mansur discloses an agricultural implement having structural components, including a tool bar, shanks, and tools.
• a frame;
See at least:
“there is illustrated a row cultivator 10 … employing a row following system 12 coupled to a tool bar 13.”
Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9-13.
Rationale:
Mansur’s tool bar 13 corresponds to a frame or frame member of the agricultural implement because it supports the shanks and tools of the implement. Thus, Mansur expressly discloses a frame;.
• a plurality of ground-engaging shank assemblies
See at least:
“The tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15.”
Mansur, col. 3, ll. 13-15.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses plural shanks 14 carrying tools 15. The shanks and tools correspond to ground-engaging shank assemblies because they are supported by the implement frame/tool bar and engage the ground during cultivation. Thus, Mansur expressly discloses a plurality of ground-engaging shank assemblies.
• supported relative to the frame,
See at least:
“The tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15.”
Mansur, col. 3, ll. 13-15.
Rationale:
Because Mansur discloses that tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15, the shank assemblies are supported relative to the tool bar/frame. Thus, Mansur expressly discloses supported relative to the frame.
• each ground-engaging shank assembly comprising:
See at least:
“As can be seen in FIG. 5, there is illustrated a tool 60 disposed on the lower end of a shank 61 …”
Mansur, col. 4, ll. 7-10.
Rationale:
Mansur discloses a representative shank assembly including shank 61 and tool 60, which corresponds to each ground-engaging shank assembly having the recited structural components. Thus, Mansur discloses each ground-engaging shank assembly comprising:.
• an attachment structure
See at least:
“The shank being retained in a clamp 62 employing-U-shaped clamp plates 63 and 64…”Mansur, col. 4, ll. 10-12.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses clamp 62 and clamp plates 63 and 64 retaining the shank. Clamp 62 and clamp plates 63 and 64 correspond to an attachment structure because they attach, retain, or support the shank relative to the implement frame. Thus, Mansur discloses an attachment structure.
• coupled to the frame;
See at least:
“the clamp being coupled to a tool bar 65 about a horizontal pivot axis 66 on flange 67.”Mansur, col. 4, ll. 12-14.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses that the clamp is coupled to tool bar 65. Mansur’s tool bar 65 is the frame/tool-bar member in the FIG. 5 embodiment, just as tool bar 13 is the frame/tool-bar member in the FIG. 1 implement embodiment. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, either tool bar constitutes a frame or frame member because it supports the shank assembly relative to the agricultural implement. Thus, Mansur expressly discloses coupled to the frame;.
• a shank portion
See at least:
“there is illustrated a tool 60 disposed on the lower end of a shank 61…”
Mansur, col. 4, ll. 7-10.
Rationale:
Mansur expressly discloses shank 61. Shank 61 corresponds to a shank portion.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly disclose the following limitations:
• pivotably coupled to the attachment structure
• at a pivot joint;
• a shear pin
• at least partially extending through the attachment structure and the shank portion
• to prevent pivoting of the shank portion about the pivot joint; and
• a biasing element
• coupled between the frame and the attachment structure,
• the biasing element being configured to
• bias the shank portion
• towards a ground-engaging position;
• a first sensor
• configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;
• a second sensor
• configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
• a computing system
• communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor,
• the computing system configured to:
• determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
• based on the first sensor data; and,
• identify a location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the data generated by the second sensor
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake discloses:
• pivotably coupled to the attachment structure
See at least:
“A mounting plate is attached to the rear of each upright support and a specially adapted ripper shank, with an attached deep penetrating ripper blade, is attachable to each plate via a pair of bolts which extend through respective mounting bores in the plate. One of the bolts in each pair is a pivot bolt which provides a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing.”Hake, col. 2, ll. 18-28.
Rationale:
Hake expressly discloses a ripper shank attachable to a mounting plate by bolts, including a pivot bolt that provides a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing. The mounting plate corresponds to the attachment structure, and the ripper shank corresponds to the shank portion. Thus, Hake expressly discloses the shank portion being pivotably coupled to the attachment structure.
• at a pivot joint;
See at least:
“One of the bolts in each pair is a pivot bolt which provides a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing.”
Hake, col. 2, ll. 25-28.
Rationale:
Hake’s pivot bolt provides the pivot point about which the ripper shank swings. That pivot bolt/pivot point corresponds to a pivot joint.
• a shear pin
See at least:
“The other bolt is a shear pin which is designed to shear off should the ripper blade encounter an obstruction…”Hake, col. 2, ll. 28-31.
“The bolt 62 is preferably a solid strengthened steel bolt while the bolt 63 is a shear pin.”Hake, col. 4, ll. 40-43.
Rationale:
Hake expressly discloses bolt 63 as a shear pin designed to shear off when the ripper blade encounters an obstruction. Thus, Hake expressly discloses a shear pin.
• at least partially extending through the attachment structure and the shank portion
See at least:
“A specially adapted parabolic ripper shank … is attachable to each plate via a pair of bolts which extend through respective ones of the mounting bores.”
Hake, col. 2, ll. 21-25.
“The support plate 54 includes a plurality of bores 61 near the rear thereof which are sized to accommodate attachment bolts 62 and 63 of a ripper shank 64.”Hake, col. 4, ll. 33-38.
Rationale:
Hake expressly discloses that the ripper shank is attachable to the plate by bolts extending through mounting bores, and further discloses that bores 61 in support plate 54 accommodate attachment bolts 62 and 63 of ripper shank 64. Since bolt 63 is the shear pin, a PHOSITA would understand that the shear pin cooperates with both the support plate/mounting plate and the ripper shank. The claim requires only “at least partially extending through,” which is satisfied or at least rendered obvious by a shear-pin bolt extending through mounting bores to secure the shank to the plate. Thus, Hake discloses or renders obvious at least partially extending through the attachment structure and the shank portion.
• to prevent pivoting of the shank portion about the pivot joint;
See at least:
“The other bolt is a shear pin which is designed to shear off should the ripper blade encounter an obstruction…”Hake, col. 2, ll. 28-31.
“When conditions are not right for the shattering operation, the ripper shank 64 can be readily moved to a non-operative position … by merely pulling the shear pin 63 and pivoting the shank 64 180 degrees about the mounting bolt 62.”
Hake, col. 4, ll. 56-60.
Rationale:
Hake expressly discloses that the shear pin is designed to shear off when the ripper blade encounters an obstruction and that the shank can be pivoted about mounting bolt 62 after shear pin 63 is pulled. These disclosures support the functional relationship that shear pin 63 restrains pivoting during normal operation and that removal or failure of the shear pin permits pivoting about the pivot bolt. Thus, Hake expressly discloses or renders obvious the shear pin functioning to prevent pivoting of the shank portion about the pivot joint.
Examiner Note:
While Mansur discloses horizontal pivot axis 66 and bolt 70, Mansur’s disclosure describes the clamp/shank assembly at a level of generality in which bolt 70 holds the shank/clamp assembly to the tool bar and fails when the tool strikes an underground object. Hake supplies the more specific pivot-bolt/shear-pin geometry: a pivot bolt defining the pivot point, a separate shear pin cooperating with the mounting plate/support plate and shank, and a shear pin restraining pivoting until removed or sheared.
Motivation to Combine Mansur and Hake
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur and Hake before them, to modify Mansur’s row-cultivator shank/shear-release assembly by incorporating Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin mounting arrangement. Mansur and Hake are analogous agricultural implement references directed to ground-engaging shanks and are reasonably pertinent to the same problem of protecting shanks from underground obstructions using release fasteners. The modification would have preserved Mansur’s obstruction-release function while providing Hake’s more specific and predictable pivot-joint/shear-pin structure. Hake’s separate pivot-bolt and shear-pin arrangement also provides the functional advantage of allowing the shank to reliably pivot upward about a defined pivot point upon shear-pin failure, rather than relying on an unpredictable destructive fastener-failure mode without a controlled pivot-release path.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• and a biasing element
• coupled between the frame and the attachment structure,
• the biasing element being configured to
• bias the shank portion
• towards a ground-engaging position;
• a first sensor
• configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;
• a second sensor
• configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
• a computing system
• communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor,
• the computing system configured to:
• determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
• based on the first sensor data; and,
• identify a location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the data generated by the second sensor
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk renders obvious:
• and a biasing element
See at least:
“A biasing member 23 extends between a mounting bracket 22 and a lower arm 21 of the linkage assembly 19 establishing the downward force on the row unit 20. As illustrated, the biasing member 23 is a spring, exerting a constant downward force.”Kowalchuk, [0024].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses biasing member 23, which is a spring exerting a downward force on a row unit. Biasing member 23 corresponds to a biasing element.
• coupled between the frame and the attachment structure,
See at least:
“The row unit 20 includes multiple arms 21 of a linkage assembly 19 configured to mount the row unit 20 to the toolbar 18.”
Kowalchuk, [0024].
“A biasing member 23 extends between a mounting bracket 22 and a lower arm 21 of the linkage assembly 19 establishing the downward force on the row unit 20.”
Kowalchuk, [0024].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses a linkage assembly mounting the row unit to toolbar 18 and a biasing member extending between mounting bracket 22 and lower arm 21 of linkage assembly 19. In Kowalchuk, toolbar 18 corresponds to the frame, mounting bracket 22 provides the frame-side anchor point, lower arm 21/linkage assembly 19 provides the attachment-structure-side anchor point for the row-unit/ground-engaging assembly, and biasing member 23 spans that connection to apply down-force between the frame side and the ground-engaging assembly side.
Although Kowalchuk does not use the phrase “attachment structure,” the linkage/lower-arm structure functions as part of the row-unit attachment structure between the frame/tool bar and the ground-engaging unit. In the modified Mansur/Hake system, it would have been obvious to apply Kowalchuk’s same down-force spring/cylinder architecture between the implement frame/tool bar and the shank attachment structure so that the shank assembly remains urged toward the soil. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses or renders obvious coupled between the frame and the attachment structure,.
• the biasing element being configured to
See at least:
“The linkage assembly 19 is configured to allow vertical movement of each row unit 20 to account for uneven terrain while maintaining a desired downward force such that the row unit 20 remains in contact with the terrain.”
Kowalchuk, [0024].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that the linkage and biasing arrangement is configured to maintain desired downward force so the row unit remains in contact with the terrain. Thus, Kowalchuk discloses the biasing element being configured to perform a biasing function.
• bias the shank portion
See at least:
“A biasing member 23 extends between a mounting bracket 22 and a lower arm 21 of the linkage assembly 19 establishing the downward force on the row unit 20.”
Kowalchuk, [0024].
“Optionally, the biasing member 23 may include a pneumatic or hydraulic cylinder used in cooperation with or instead of the spring.”
Kowalchuk, [0024].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses a biasing member establishing downward force on a row unit. In the Mansur/Hake modified system, the ground-engaging shank portion is the ground-working component of the shank assembly. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply Kowalchuk’s known downward-force biasing arrangement to the shank assembly so that the biasing element biases the shank portion. Thus, Kowalchuk renders obvious bias the shank portion.
• towards a ground-engaging position;
See at least:
“The linkage assembly 19 is configured to allow vertical movement of each row unit 20 to account for uneven terrain while maintaining a desired downward force such that the row unit 20 remains in contact with the terrain.”
Kowalchuk, [0024].
“As illustrated, the biasing member 23 is a spring, exerting a constant downward force.”Kowalchuk, [0024].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses maintaining downward force so that the row unit remains in contact with terrain. In the modified Mansur/Hake system, a downward force applied to the shank assembly biases the shank portion toward the soil-working or ground-engaging position. Thus, Kowalchuk discloses or renders obvious towards a ground-engaging position;.
• a first sensor
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20.”
Kowalchuk, [0029].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65. In the combined system, vibration sensor 65 corresponds to a first sensor.
• configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100 on the air drill 16 and/or the controller 70 in the tractor 12.”Kowalchuk, [0034].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65 mounted on the agricultural implement, including optional mounting to tool bar 18, and providing a feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill. Tool bar 18 is a frame member of the agricultural implement. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses configured to generate data indicative of vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement;.
• a computing system
See at least:
“The controller 100 receives feedback signals from a pressure sensor 114 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 100 receiving feedback signals and executing control logic. Controller 100 corresponds to a computing system under broadest reasonable interpretation.
• the computing system configured to:
See at least:
“The controller 100 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of pressure applied by each cylinder 112 and modifies the reference signal output to the actuator 110.”Kowalchuk, [0033].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 100 executing a program and modifying reference signals to actuators. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses the computing system configured to: perform programmed monitoring and control functions.
• determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
See at least:
“The controller 100 receives feedback signals from a pressure sensor 114 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“If the magnitude of the vibration exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 100 increases the value of the reference signal output to the actuator 110…”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“Alternately, if the controller 100 detects that the magnitude of the vibration drops below a second predefined value, the controller 100 may decrease the value of the reference signal output to the actuator 110…”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“Each of the limits, first predefined value, and second predefined value are configurable by the operator via the user interface 74.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk does not expressly disclose determining shear-pin failure. However, Kowalchuk expressly discloses a controller receiving vibration sensor data, comparing vibration magnitude to configurable predefined values, and executing controller action when a vibration condition is detected. In the Mansur/Hake modified assembly, the shear pin restrains the shank in its normal ground-working position and fails when the tool encounters an obstruction. A PHOSITA would understand that shear-pin failure transitions the shank from a restrained ground-working condition to a released or pivoted condition, producing a change in frame loading and vibration characteristics, whether as an impulse event at failure, a later reduction in soil-engagement forces, or an anomalous vibration pattern from a freely pivoting shank. Such a vibration change would be detectable using Kowalchuk’s configurable threshold architecture. Thus, Kowalchuk, as applied to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin assembly, renders obvious determine when the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
• based on the first sensor data; and,
See at least:
“The controller 100 receives feedback signals from a pressure sensor 114 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 100 receives feedback from vibration sensor 65. Because vibration sensor 65 corresponds to the first sensor in the combined system, the shear-pin-failure determination is rendered obvious as being based on the first sensor data;
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural shank assembly with Kowalchuk’s biasing member/down-force architecture and vibration-sensor/controller architecture so that the shank portion is biased toward a ground-engaging position and vibration data is used to determine when a shear pin has failed.
Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical agricultural shank and shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the complementary down-force/biasing mechanism for maintaining ground engagement and the vibration-sensor/controller architecture for detecting abnormal implement vibration. A PHOSITA would have understood that ground-engaging agricultural tools, including tillage shanks and row units, commonly require down-force or biasing arrangements to maintain soil engagement over uneven terrain. Applying Kowalchuk’s spring/cylinder down-force architecture to the Mansur/Hake shank assembly would therefore have been a predictable use of a known agricultural implement biasing mechanism for the same purpose of maintaining ground engagement. Likewise, vibration sensing provides a practical way to detect an abnormal shear-release event without stopping the implement for manual inspection. The combination reflects the predictable use of known agricultural implement components according to their established functions: using a spring or cylinder to maintain ground engagement and using a vibration sensor/controller to detect abnormal vibration associated with shank release.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
• a second sensor
• configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement; and
• communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor,
• identify a location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the data generated by the second sensor
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses:
• a second sensor
See at least:
“each detection assembly 100 may, in turn, include a seedbed floor sensor 126 configured to detect the position of the seedbed tool 114 of the assembly 100 relative to the frame 16…”Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses seedbed floor sensor(s) 126. In the combined system, the seedbed floor sensor(s) correspond to a second sensor.
• configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition
See at least:
“the seedbed tool 114 may be configured to ride along or otherwise contact a floor of a seedbed created by the implement 10 as the implement 10 is being moved through the field, thereby allowing the seedbed tool 114 to follow the contour or profile of the seedbed floor.”Kovach, [0033].
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze / process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that the seedbed tool follows the contour or profile of the seedbed floor and that controller 210 receives data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 and processes that data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor. A seedbed floor profile is data indicative of a soil condition under broadest reasonable interpretation because it represents the shape, contour, height, depth, or vertical profile of the soil/seedbed. Thus, Kovach expressly discloses configured to generate data indicative of a soil condition.
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
See at least:
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
“if the implement 10 is configured as a cultivator or ripper, the implement 10 may include a plurality of rows or ranks of ground penetrating shanks.”
Kovach, [0024].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses detection assemblies positioned aft of ground-penetrating tools and further discloses that the implement may include rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks. In the Mansur/Hake modified system, the claimed shank portions are the ground-engaging, ground-penetrating tools. Although Kovach does not expressly assign one detection assembly to each claimed shank assembly, Kovach discloses one or more detection assemblies and per-sensor profile association. A PHOSITA seeking failed-shank localization would have found it obvious to associate Kovach’s detection assemblies, sensor regions, or profile outputs with respective shank paths so that the second sensor data is indicative of soil condition aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly.
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement;
See at least:
“the implement 10 may be configured to be towed along a forward direction of travel 12…”Kovach, [0020].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a forward direction of travel 12 and positions the detection assembly aft of ground-penetrating tools relative to that direction of travel. Thus, Kovach expressly discloses relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement.
• and communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor,
See at least:
“The controller 100 receives feedback signals from a pressure sensor 114 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0033].
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 (e.g., via the communicative link 216).”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses a controller communicatively coupled to the first sensor, namely vibration sensor 65. Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 communicatively coupled to the second sensor, namely seedbed floor sensor(s) 126, via communicative link 216. This limitation is satisfied by the combination of both references: Kowalchuk supplies the first-sensor communication path, and Kovach completes the second-sensor communication path. Combining these controller teachings into a single computing system or coordinated controller architecture would have been obvious because both references use controller-based agricultural implement monitoring and sensor-feedback processing. Thus, the combined system renders obvious communicatively coupled to the first sensor and the second sensor,.
• identify a location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses associating each profile with data from one of the seedbed floor sensors and associating profile variation with the locations of detection assemblies. In the combined system, where Kovach’s detection assemblies, sensor regions, or profile outputs are associated with respective Mansur/Hake shank paths, the location of an abnormal aft profile corresponds to the location of the failed shank. Thus, Kovach renders obvious identifying a location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
• based on the data generated by the second sensor
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze / process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 and analyzing/processing that data to determine seedbed floor profiles. Because the seedbed floor sensor(s) correspond to the second sensor, Kovach expressly discloses location identification based on the data generated by the second sensor.
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
See at least:
“As such, when the differential between the first and second seedbed floor profiles exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions to address the differential.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses conditional controller logic in which controller action is initiated when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold. Kowalchuk supplies the first-stage vibration-based failure determination. In the combined system, it would have been obvious to use the vibration-based shear-pin-failure determination as the trigger for the Kovach soil-profile localization routine because the first sensor answers whether a shear-release failure event occurred, while the second sensor answers where the resulting abnormal soil condition occurred. This sequencing reduces false-positive localization from ordinary soil variation and avoids unnecessary localization processing when no failure event has been detected. Thus, the combination renders obvious identifying the location in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 9
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to further configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk with Kovach’s aft seedbed-floor sensing and controller-based profile analysis so that, after the first sensor data indicates that a shear pin has failed, the computing system identifies a location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on data generated by the second sensor.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the biasing/down-force mechanism, vibration sensor, and vibration-based controller architecture for detecting abnormal implement vibration associated with a shear-release event. Kovach provides the complementary aft soil-profile sensing architecture for determining where the abnormal soil condition exists behind the ground-engaging tool path.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to combine these teachings because vibration sensing identifies that a failure event occurred, but aft soil-profile sensing identifies which shank path is no longer producing the expected soil condition. The combination reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: a biasing member maintains ground engagement, a vibration sensor detects abnormal mechanical operation, and aft soil-profile sensing localizes the affected shank path. The resulting agricultural implement would predictably improve fault localization, reduce unnecessary manual inspection, reduce continued operation with a failed shank, and preserve the two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event and second sensor data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitations of Claim 10 remain not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data,
• the computing system is configured to:
• determine a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement
• based on the first sensor data;
• compare the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame
• to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
• when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk renders obvious:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data,
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20.”
Kowalchuk, [0029].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 receiving first sensor feedback from vibration sensor 65, determining vibration magnitude, reading a preset maximum vibration magnitude, comparing the feedback signal to the preset value, and executing a controller routine when the feedback signal exceeds the preset value. Kowalchuk does not expressly disclose shear-pin failure. However, in the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement established for Claim 9, the shear pin restrains the shank in its normal ground-engaging position and fails when the tool encounters an obstruction. A PHOSITA would have understood that such shear-pin release produces a recognizable abnormal vibration condition, including an impulsive shock, sudden vibration-magnitude spike, or abrupt change in vibration transmitted through the shank assembly and frame. Such an abnormal vibration condition would be distinguishable from ordinary field vibration by threshold calibration. Thus, Kowalchuk, as applied to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin assembly, renders obvious wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data,.
• the computing system is configured to:
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program, stored in memory 72, to monitor and, if necessary, reduce the magnitude of vibration.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk’s controller 70 corresponds to a computing system under broadest reasonable interpretation because it executes a stored program, receives sensor feedback, reads stored or preset values, compares vibration feedback to threshold values, and executes programmed control routines. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses the computing system is configured to: perform the recited vibration-threshold functions.
• determine a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100 on the air drill 16 and/or the controller 70 in the tractor 12.”Kowalchuk, [0034].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65…”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65 detecting vibration magnitude or bounce, including an embodiment in which a single vibration sensor is mounted to tool bar 18 and provides feedback corresponding to overall vibration of the agricultural implement. Tool bar 18 is a frame member of the agricultural implement. Kowalchuk further discloses controller 70 monitoring the magnitude of vibration detected by vibration sensor 65. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses determine a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement.
• based on the first sensor data;
See at least:
“The controller 70 receives feedback signals from a speed sensor 82 and from the vibration sensor 65.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65…”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 70 receives feedback from vibration sensor 65 and monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by vibration sensor 65. In the combined system, vibration sensor 65 is the claimed first sensor. Therefore, the vibration magnitude is determined based on the first sensor data;.
• compare the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame
See at least:
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 70 compares the vibration feedback signal to the preset value. Because the feedback signal corresponds to vibration magnitude and may correspond to overall frame/tool-bar vibration, Kowalchuk expressly discloses comparing the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame.
• to a predetermined vibration threshold value;
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The preset value may be entered, for example, by an operator via the user interface 74 and stored in memory 72.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses a preset value corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude, entered by an operator through user interface 74 and stored in memory 72. Because the value is preset and stored before the vibration comparison operation, it is a predetermined vibration threshold value. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses to a predetermined vibration threshold value;
• and determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
See at least:
“If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses determining that a vibration magnitude exceeds a preset or predefined vibration value and executing a controller routine when that condition occurs. Kowalchuk does not expressly identify the threshold-exceedance condition as a shear-pin-failure determination. However, in the Mansur/Hake implement, the shear pin restrains the shank until obstruction-induced failure. A PHOSITA in agricultural implement design would have recognized that a shear-pin release event produces a characteristic abnormal vibration response distinguishable from ordinary field vibration, including an impulse or shock at the moment of release, a sudden increase in vibration magnitude transmitted through the frame, or an abnormal vibration pattern caused by the released/pivoted shank no longer being held in its normal ground-working position. A PHOSITA would therefore have found it obvious to configure Kowalchuk’s existing threshold-exceedance routine so that the detected abnormal vibration magnitude is correlated with the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event and used to determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
• when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
See at least:
“If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller action when the vibration feedback signal exceeds a preset value and when the magnitude of vibration exceeds a first predefined value. As explained above, the preset or predefined value is predetermined because it is entered, configured, and stored before operation. In the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk system, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to set or calibrate the predetermined vibration threshold to detect the abnormal frame-vibration magnitude associated with the shear-release event. Because Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor may be provided on each row unit or as a single tool-bar-mounted sensor providing overall implement vibration feedback, a PHOSITA would have understood that the architecture supports detecting an abnormal vibration event associated with at least one ground-engaging shank assembly. Thus, Kowalchuk renders obvious determining shear-pin failure when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 10
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system determines a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data, compares the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value, and determines that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor implementation and vibration-threshold controller logic by teaching a vibration sensor that detects vibration magnitude, a controller that compares vibration feedback to a preset or predefined vibration value, and a controller routine triggered when the threshold is exceeded. Kovach completes the parent Claim 9 diagnostic architecture by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing used to identify the location of the affected shank after the vibration-based failure determination.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to implement Kowalchuk’s magnitude-threshold logic within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement because the threshold comparison provides a predictable and configurable way to detect abnormal frame vibration associated with a shear-release event. The modification reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the routine calibration of a known vibration-threshold controller for a known agricultural implement fault condition. The resulting system preserves the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event, and second sensor data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitations of Claim 11 remain not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data,
• the computing system is configured to:
• determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement
• based on the first sensor data;
• compare the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame
• to a predetermined amplitude threshold value; and
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
• when the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk renders obvious:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data,
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 receiving vibration-magnitude feedback from vibration sensor 65, reading a preset maximum vibration magnitude, comparing the feedback signal to the preset value, and executing a controller routine when the feedback signal exceeds the preset value. Kowalchuk does not expressly disclose shear-pin failure. However, in the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement established for Claim 9, the shear pin restrains the shank in its normal ground-engaging position and fails when the tool encounters an obstruction. A PHOSITA would have understood that such shear-pin release produces a recognizable abnormal vibration condition, including an impulsive shock, sudden vibration-amplitude spike, or abrupt change in vibration transmitted through the shank assembly and frame. Such an abnormal vibration condition would be distinguishable from ordinary field vibration by threshold calibration. A PHOSITA would also have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Kowalchuk’s threshold-based vibration logic to detect such a shear-pin failure event because Kowalchuk already uses vibration feedback and preset vibration thresholds to identify abnormal implement vibration conditions. Thus, Kowalchuk, as applied to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin assembly, renders obvious wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data,.
• the computing system is configured to:
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program, stored in memory 72, to monitor and, if necessary, reduce the magnitude of vibration.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk’s controller 70 corresponds to a computing system under broadest reasonable interpretation because it executes a program stored in memory 72, receives sensor feedback, reads stored or preset values, compares vibration feedback to threshold values, and executes programmed control routines. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses the computing system is configured to: perform vibration-threshold processing.
• determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100 on the air drill 16 and/or the controller 70 in the tractor 12.”Kowalchuk, [0034].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, detecting vibration magnitude or bounce, including an embodiment in which a single vibration sensor is mounted to tool bar 18 and provides feedback corresponding to overall vibration of the agricultural implement. Tool bar 18 is a frame member of the agricultural implement. Kowalchuk does not expressly use the word “amplitude” in the cited excerpts. However, a PHOSITA would have understood that an accelerometer-generated vibration signal has an amplitude, and that determining vibration magnitude from such first sensor data includes or at least renders obvious determining an amplitude of the vibration signal, such as peak amplitude, peak-to-peak amplitude, or RMS amplitude. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration magnitude processing and renders obvious determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement.
• based on the first sensor data;
See at least:
“The controller 70 receives feedback signals from a speed sensor 82 and from the vibration sensor 65.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 70 receives feedback from vibration sensor 65 and monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by vibration sensor 65. In the combined system, vibration sensor 65 is the claimed first sensor. Therefore, the vibration amplitude is rendered obvious as being determined based on the first sensor data;.
• compare the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame
See at least:
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses that controller 70 compares the vibration feedback signal to the preset value. Because a PHOSITA would have understood the vibration feedback signal from an accelerometer to include a measurable vibration amplitude, and because vibration amplitude is a conventional measurable form of vibration magnitude, Kowalchuk renders obvious comparing the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame.
• to a predetermined amplitude threshold value; and
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The preset value may be entered, for example, by an operator via the user interface 74 and stored in memory 72.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses a preset value corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude, entered by an operator through user interface 74 and stored in memory 72. Because the value is preset and stored before the comparison operation, it is predetermined. To the extent Claim 11 recites a predetermined amplitude threshold value, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kowalchuk’s preset maximum vibration magnitude as an amplitude threshold value because amplitude is a conventional and predictable measurable form of vibration magnitude derived from accelerometer data. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses or renders obvious to a predetermined amplitude threshold value;
• determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed
See at least:
“If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses determining that a vibration signal exceeds a preset or predefined vibration value and executing a controller routine when that condition occurs. Kowalchuk does not expressly identify the threshold-exceedance condition as a shear-pin-failure determination. However, in the Mansur/Hake implement, the shear pin restrains the shank until obstruction-induced failure. A PHOSITA in agricultural implement design would have recognized that a shear-pin release event produces a characteristic abnormal vibration response distinguishable from ordinary field vibration, including an impulse or shock at the moment of release, a sudden increase in vibration amplitude transmitted through the frame, or an abnormal vibration pattern caused by the released/pivoted shank no longer being held in its normal ground-working position. A PHOSITA would therefore have found it obvious to configure Kowalchuk’s existing threshold-exceedance routine so that the detected abnormal vibration amplitude is correlated with the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event and used to determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kowalchuk already teaches using vibration-sensor feedback and stored threshold values to detect and respond to abnormal vibration conditions in an agricultural implement environment.
• when the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
See at least:
“If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller action when the vibration feedback signal exceeds a preset value and when the vibration magnitude exceeds a first predefined value. As explained above, the preset or predefined value is predetermined because it is entered, configured, and stored before operation. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement this threshold as an amplitude threshold because amplitude is a conventional measurable characteristic of a vibration signal generated by an accelerometer. In the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk system, a PHOSITA would have further found it obvious to set or calibrate the predetermined amplitude threshold to detect the abnormal frame-vibration amplitude associated with the shear-release event. Because Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor may be provided on each row unit or as a single tool-bar-mounted sensor providing overall implement vibration feedback, a PHOSITA would have understood that the architecture supports detecting an abnormal vibration event associated with at least one ground-engaging shank assembly. Thus, Kowalchuk renders obvious determining shear-pin failure when the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 11
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that, wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the computing system is configured to: determine an amplitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data; compare the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined amplitude threshold value; and determine that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the amplitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined amplitude threshold value.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor implementation and vibration-threshold controller logic by teaching a vibration sensor that detects vibration magnitude, a controller that compares vibration feedback to a preset or predefined vibration value, and a controller routine triggered when the threshold is exceeded. Kovach completes the parent Claim 9 diagnostic architecture by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing used to identify the location of the affected shank after the vibration-based failure determination.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason and a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Kowalchuk’s amplitude-threshold logic within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement because the threshold comparison provides a predictable and configurable way to detect abnormal frame vibration associated with a shear-release event. Implementing the threshold using amplitude would have been a routine and predictable signal-processing choice because amplitude is a conventional measurable characteristic of vibration data from an accelerometer. Kovach’s aft soil-profile localization is technically compatible with, and complementary to, Kowalchuk’s amplitude-threshold failure detection because it preserves the two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event, and second sensor data localizes the failed shank. The modification reflects the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions and the routine calibration of a known vibration-threshold controller for a known agricultural implement fault condition.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 12. Mansur provides the agricultural implement, frame/tool-bar, plural shank environment, and shear-release context; Hake provides the specific pivot-bolt/shear-pin shank geometry; Kowalchuk provides the biasing/down-force structure, first vibration sensor, vibration-based failure-detection logic, and controller architecture; and Kovach provides the second aft soil-condition sensor, soil/seedbed profile determination, profile-threshold comparison, and location-correlated profile analysis.
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur establishes the primary agricultural implement and shear-release shank environment of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added soil-profile location-identification limitations of Claim 12.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly disclose the following additional limitations of Claim 12:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data,
• the computing system is configured to:
• determine a soil dimension profile
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement
• based on the second sensor data;
• compare the soil dimension profile
• to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold
• for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
• identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• when the soil dimension profile falls below
• the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake further establishes the pivot-bolt/shear-pin shank structure of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added soil-profile location-identification limitations of Claim 12.
Motivation to Combine Mansur and Hake
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur and Hake before them, to modify Mansur’s row-cultivator shank/shear-release assembly by incorporating Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin mounting arrangement. Mansur and Hake are analogous agricultural implement references directed to ground-engaging shanks and are reasonably pertinent to protecting ground-engaging shanks from underground obstructions using release fasteners. Hake’s separate pivot-bolt and shear-pin arrangement would have provided the predictable structural benefit of allowing the shank to remain restrained during normal operation and pivot about a defined pivot point after shear-pin failure.
The Mansur/Hake combined structure is specifically relevant to Claim 12 because it supplies the mechanical shear-pin failure context in which the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is to be identified. When the shear pin fails and the shank pivots or lifts away from its normal soil-working position, the soil condition aft of that shank path predictably changes, thereby providing the physical basis for the Claim 12 soil-profile monitoring and location-identification architecture.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitations of Claim 12 remain not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data,
• the computing system is configured to:
• determine a soil dimension profile
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement
• based on the second sensor data;
• compare the soil dimension profile
• to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold
• for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
• identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• when the soil dimension profile falls below
• the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk further establishes the first-sensor failure-detection and controller architecture of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added Claim 12 soil-profile location-identification limitations.
Kowalchuk discloses a controller-based vibration detection architecture in which vibration sensor data is used to detect abnormal implement vibration and trigger controller response. This supplies the first-stage failure-detection context for Claim 9 and Claim 12: first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event has occurred, and the second sensor data is then used to identify where the failed shank is located.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement with Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor and controller-based threshold-comparison logic so that first sensor data is used to determine when a shear-pin failure event has occurred. Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical shear-pin failure environment, and Kowalchuk provides the complementary vibration-based sensing and controller architecture for detecting abnormal implement operation associated with a shear-release event.
This intermediate combination is specifically relevant to Claim 12 because the first-stage vibration detection flags the failure event that triggers the second-stage operation recited in Claim 12, namely wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the computing system is configured to: perform the claimed soil-profile determination, comparison, and location-identification steps. Thus, Kowalchuk provides the reason to proceed to Kovach’s aft soil-profile architecture: the vibration-based determination identifies that a failure occurred, while the aft soil-profile analysis identifies where the failed shank is located.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitations of Claim 12 remain not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data,
• the computing system is configured to:
• determine a soil dimension profile
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement
• based on the second sensor data;
• compare the soil dimension profile
• to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold
• for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
• identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• when the soil dimension profile falls below
• the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses or renders obvious:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 and analyzing/processing that data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor, with each profile associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s). Kovach further discloses that determined profile variation is associated with locations of detection assemblies. In the combined system, this profile analysis is performed after Kowalchuk’s vibration-based failure determination indicates that a shear-release event has occurred. Thus, Kovach discloses or renders obvious the computing-system functionality used wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
• based on the second sensor data,
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 (e.g., via the communicative link 216).”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 via communicative link 216. In the combined system, seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 correspond to the claimed second sensor. This occurrence of based on the second sensor data, functions as the data-source modifier for the overall location-identification block recited in Claim 12, rather than merely the data-source modifier for determining the profile. Therefore, Kovach expressly discloses location-identification processing based on the second sensor data,.
• the computing system is configured to:
See at least:
“For instance, the controller 210 may include a look-up table(s), suitable mathematical formula, and/or algorithms stored within its memory 214 that correlates the received data to the seedbed floor profile(s).”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses controller 210, memory 214, look-up tables, mathematical formulas, and/or algorithms stored in memory for correlating received sensor data to seedbed floor profiles. Thus, Kovach discloses the relevant computing-system configuration recited by the computing system is configured to:.
• determine a soil dimension profile
See at least:
“Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 determines one or more profiles of the seedbed floor from received sensor data. A seedbed floor profile is a soil dimension profile under broadest reasonable interpretation because it represents the vertical dimension, contour, height, depth, or shape of the soil/seedbed floor. Therefore, Kovach expressly discloses determine a soil dimension profile.
• aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
See at least:
“if the implement 10 is configured as a cultivator or ripper, the implement 10 may include a plurality of rows or ranks of ground penetrating shanks.”
Kovach, [0024].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
“one detection assembly 100 is coupled to each section 36, 38, 40 of the frame 16. However, in alternative embodiments, each section 36, 38, 40 may include more than one detection assembly 100, such as two or more detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0027].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses an agricultural implement that may include rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks and expressly discloses detection assemblies positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools relative to the direction of travel. In the modified Mansur/Hake system, the claimed shank portions are the ground-engaging, ground-penetrating tools. Thus, Kovach’s aft detection assemblies disclose or render obvious soil-profile sensing aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly.
Although Kovach does not expressly state that a separate detection assembly is assigned to every claimed shank assembly, Kovach discloses one or more detection assemblies, multiple seedbed floor sensor(s), and more than one detection assembly per frame section. A PHOSITA seeking failed-shank localization in the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement would have had a specific reason to associate Kovach’s detection assemblies, sensor regions, field of view, or profile outputs with respective shank paths. The claim recites second sensor data indicative of soil condition aft of each shank; it does not require a separate physical sensor dedicated to each shank. A sensor array, distributed sensing arrangement, or processing system that associates aft profile data with respective shank paths would satisfy this limitation and would have been a predictable scaling of Kovach’s per-assembly seedbed-profile architecture.
• relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement
See at least:
“the implement 10 may be configured to be towed along a forward direction of travel 12…”Kovach, [0020].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a forward direction of travel 12 and expressly positions each detection assembly aft of the ground-penetrating tools relative to that direction of travel. Therefore, Kovach expressly discloses relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement.
• based on the second sensor data;
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 receives data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 and analyzes/processes that received data to determine one or more seedbed floor profiles. This occurrence of based on the second sensor data; is the direct data-source basis for determine a soil dimension profile, as opposed to the earlier occurrence of “based on the second sensor data,” which modifies the overall location-identification block. Therefore, Kovach expressly discloses determining the soil dimension profile based on the second sensor data;.
• compare the soil dimension profile
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles to determine a differential between such profiles.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 compares determined seedbed floor profiles. Because the seedbed floor profile corresponds to the claimed soil dimension profile under broadest reasonable interpretation, Kovach expressly discloses compare the soil dimension profile.
• to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold
See at least:
“the predetermined threshold used by the controller 210 to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles may be selected to prevent the controller 210 from initiating control action(s) when only minor differences exist between the seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0049].
“the predetermined threshold may be a differential between the determined seedbed floor profiles that is great enough to be indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204.”
Kovach, [0049].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a predetermined threshold used by controller 210 when comparing determined seedbed floor profiles, where the threshold is selected to distinguish minor differences from profile differences significant enough to indicate poor seedbed quality or the need for adjustment. Kovach does not expressly use the exact phrase “predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.” However, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s predetermined profile-threshold comparison by comparing the measured soil dimension profile behind each shank path to a predetermined minimum acceptable soil dimension profile threshold for that shank path.
Kovach’s differential threshold is functionally analogous to a per-shank lower-bound threshold when only one shank path exhibits a failure-related profile deviation, because both approaches determine whether a measured profile condition departs from an expected normal profile condition by more than an acceptable amount. A per-shank lower-bound threshold directly addresses the Claim 12 localization objective because it identifies which shank path no longer produces the expected soil profile. Both Kovach’s differential-threshold approach and the claimed per-shank lower-bound threshold use stored or pre-established threshold-comparison logic to distinguish ordinary profile variation from a significant soil-profile anomaly. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success implementing this predictable alternative because it uses the same controller-based profile comparison, predetermined threshold, and anomaly-detection architecture taught by Kovach.
This mapping relies on Kovach [0049] for the predetermined-threshold aspect, not on a dynamically computed real-time average. A stored, selected, calibrated, or otherwise pre-established threshold associated with normal soil-working operation would have been a predictable implementation of Kovach’s disclosed predetermined threshold-based profile comparison.
• for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“the implement 10 may include first and second seedbed floor detection assemblies 100, with the detection assemblies 100 being spaced apart from each other along the lateral direction 24.”Kovach, [0047].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that each seedbed floor profile may be associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s), that detection assemblies may be laterally spaced, and that the controller may determine differentials between three or more seedbed floor profiles. A PHOSITA seeking to identify each failed shank location in the Mansur/Hake system would have had a specific reason to associate each detection assembly, sensor region, or profile output with a corresponding shank path. Therefore, Kovach renders obvious profile-threshold comparison for each ground-engaging shank assembly.
For multiple failed shank locations, Kovach’s per-profile/per-sensor association supports independent identification because each profile is associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s). When the sensor profiles, detection assemblies, sensor regions, or field-of-view portions are associated with respective shank paths, each failed shank path can be independently evaluated against its corresponding predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
• and identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
See at least:
“one detection assembly 100 is coupled to each section 36, 38, 40 of the frame 16. However, in alternative embodiments, each section 36, 38, 40 may include more than one detection assembly 100, such as two or more detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0027].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses multiple detection assemblies, three or more seedbed floor profiles, and profile variation at detection-assembly locations. These teachings support location-correlated profile analysis. Kovach does not expressly disclose a failed shear pin. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach implement, Kowalchuk’s first sensor data determines that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed, and Kovach’s second sensor data provides location-correlated aft soil-profile information.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to associate Kovach’s detection assemblies, sensor regions, or profile outputs with respective Mansur/Hake shank paths because the design objective is to identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin. A shank released from its normal ground-working position after shear-pin failure would no longer produce the same aft soil condition as a properly restrained shank. Therefore, the location of the abnormal or below-threshold aft profile corresponds to the location of the failed shank. This reasoning uses Kovach’s express location-correlated profile architecture without requiring Kovach itself to disclose failed shear pins.
• when the soil dimension profile falls below
See at least:
“when the differential between the first and second seedbed floor profiles exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions to address the differential.”
Kovach, [0047].
“the predetermined threshold used by the controller 210 to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles may be selected to prevent the controller 210 from initiating control action(s) when only minor differences exist between the seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0049].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses threshold-based profile anomaly detection. Kovach frames the anomaly as a differential exceeding a predetermined threshold. Claim 12 recites a below-threshold condition. In the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach implement, a failed shear pin releases the corresponding shank from its normal ground-working position, causing that shank to stop forming the expected soil condition. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s same thresholding principle as a lower-bound profile threshold, such that the relevant fault condition is detected when the soil dimension profile falls below the expected or minimum acceptable profile associated with normal shank operation.
This is not a change in principle of operation. It is the predictable application of Kovach’s disclosed profile-threshold anomaly detection to the physical failure mode of a released or lifted shank. Where proper shank operation produces an expected aft soil profile, a below-threshold profile indicates that the shank path is not being worked normally.
• the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
See at least:
“the predetermined threshold may be a differential between the determined seedbed floor profiles that is great enough to be indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204.”
Kovach, [0049].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses a predetermined threshold used to identify profile differences significant enough to indicate poor seedbed quality or a need for adjustment. In the combined system, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to use a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold corresponding to the minimum expected soil profile produced by a properly restrained, ground-engaging shank. When the measured aft profile falls below that threshold, the system identifies the corresponding shank location as having a failed shear pin. This is a predictable application of Kovach’s disclosed profile-threshold anomaly detection to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin failure environment.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 12
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that, wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the computing system is configured to: determine a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data; compare the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural implement of claim 9 having ground-engaging shank assemblies in which the mechanical shear-pin failure condition occurs. In that structure, the soil worked aft of a properly restrained shank differs predictably from the soil aft of a released shank. Thus, the Mansur/Hake shank structure supplies the physical context for identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on an aft soil-profile change.
Kowalchuk provides the first-stage controller architecture for determining that a failure event has occurred, so that the Claim 12 process is performed wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data. The first-stage vibration determination makes the second-stage soil-profile threshold analysis more targeted, because it tells the computing system when the location-identification operation should be performed.
Kovach provides the second-stage aft soil-profile architecture for determine a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data; for compare the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and for identify the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to apply Kovach’s soil-profile determination and predetermined-threshold comparison logic within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement because the second sensor data provides location-correlated information indicating which shank path is no longer producing the expected aft soil condition.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kovach already teaches determining seedbed profiles, associating profiles with sensor data, locating profile variations at detection-assembly locations, and using predetermined thresholds to distinguish significant soil-profile anomalies from minor variations. Applying that known thresholding architecture to detect a below-threshold aft soil profile caused by a released or lifted shank would have predictably localized the failed shank and reduced false positives from ordinary soil variation. This is the predictable use of known elements according to their established functions under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur establishes the primary agricultural implement and shear-release shank environment of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added Claim 13 control-action limitation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly disclose the following additional limitations of Claim 13:
• wherein the computing system is further configured to
• initiate a control action
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake further establishes the pivot-bolt/shear-pin shank structure of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added Claim 13 control-action limitation.
Motivation to Combine Mansur and Hake
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur and Hake before them, to modify Mansur’s row-cultivator shank/shear-release assembly by incorporating Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin mounting arrangement. Mansur and Hake are analogous agricultural implement references directed to ground-engaging shanks and are reasonably pertinent to protecting ground-engaging shanks from underground obstructions using release fasteners. Hake’s separate pivot-bolt and shear-pin arrangement would have provided the predictable structural benefit of allowing the shank to remain restrained during normal operation and pivot about a defined pivot point after shear-pin failure.
The Mansur/Hake structure is specifically relevant to Claim 13 because it supplies the mechanical context in which the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified and in which the computing system would initiate a response after that location is identified.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitations of Claim 13 remain not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the computing system is further configured to
• initiate a control action
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• wherein the computing system is further configured to
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program, stored in memory 72, to monitor and, if necessary, reduce the magnitude of vibration.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 executing a program stored in memory 72 and executing a routine when vibration feedback exceeds a preset value. Controller 70 corresponds to the claimed computing system under broadest reasonable interpretation because it receives sensor feedback, performs threshold-based processing, and executes programmed control functions. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to.
• initiate a control action
See at least:
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“the controller 70 is configured to adjust the speed of the tractor 12 as a function of the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 generates a reference signal 77 to an actuator 78, which controls the speed of the tractor 12…”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses controller 70 executing a routine to adjust a command for an operating parameter when the vibration feedback signal exceeds a preset value. Kowalchuk further discloses specific examples of the resulting controller response, including adjusting tractor speed, generating a reference signal to actuator 78, and modifying the reference signal output to actuator 78. These are controller-initiated operating-parameter adjustments and therefore constitute control actions under broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly discloses initiate a control action.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement with Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor, controller-based threshold-comparison logic, and controller-action framework so that the computing system is further configured to initiate a control action in response to detected abnormal implement operation.
Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical shear-pin shank failure environment. Kowalchuk provides a compatible agricultural implement controller architecture that detects abnormal vibration and initiates an operating-parameter control response. This intermediate combination is specifically relevant to Claim 13 because the control-action framework supplies the controller response that is later triggered more specifically when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitation of Claim 13 remains not explicitly disclosed:
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses or renders obvious:
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”Kovach, [0047].
“As such, when the differential between the first and second seedbed floor profiles exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions to address the differential.”
Kovach, [0047].
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle/implement 10/204 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that each seedbed floor profile may be associated with data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s), and that a determined profile differential may indicate a variation in the vertical profile of the seedbed at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies. Kovach further discloses initiating one or more control actions when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold, including notifying the operator when that threshold condition occurs.
Kovach does not expressly disclose a failed shear pin. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement, Kowalchuk’s first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event has occurred, and Kovach’s second sensor data identifies a location-correlated aft soil-profile anomaly behind the affected shank path. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to initiate the control action after the location-correlated profile anomaly identifies the failed shank location, rather than merely after a generic vibration event, because acting after location identification provides a targeted and useful response to the confirmed failed-shank location.
The phrase at least one ground-engaging shank assembly is satisfied because the claim requires identification of at least one failed-shank location before the control action is initiated. Kovach’s location-correlated profile analysis supports identifying at least one abnormal profile location, and, when the corresponding detection assembly, sensor region, or profile output is associated with a respective Mansur/Hake shank path, the identified abnormal profile location corresponds to the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 13
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that the computing system is further configured to initiate a control action when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural implement of claim 9 having a ground-engaging shank assembly restrained by a shear pin until obstruction-induced failure. Kowalchuk provides the computing-system control-action framework by teaching that a controller initiates operating-parameter control responses when abnormal vibration conditions are detected. Kovach provides the location-correlated aft soil-profile analysis and threshold-based control-response framework, where profile variation is associated with detection-assembly locations and the controller initiates one or more control actions when the profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to initiate a control action when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified because merely detecting that an abnormal failure event occurred would not provide the most useful response if the implement continued operating with a known failed shank. Acting after location identification provides a targeted response to the confirmed failed-shank location, reduces unnecessary broad implement adjustments, reduces continued operation with a failed shank, and allows the operator or controller to respond to the particular affected shank path.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kowalchuk already teaches controller-initiated control actions in response to abnormal vibration conditions, and Kovach already teaches controller-initiated control actions in response to location-correlated soil-profile anomalies. Combining those teachings preserves the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event occurred, and second sensor data identifies the failed-shank location; once that location is identified, the computing system initiates the control action.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 13, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitations of Claim 14 remain not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement
• of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach renders obvious:
• wherein the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement
See at least:
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold. In general, such control action(s) may be associated with or otherwise intended to reduce or otherwise address the determined seedbed floor profile differential.”Kovach, [0050].
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle/implement 10/204 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“the controller 210 may be configured to transmit instructions to the user interface 218 … instructing the user interface 218 to provide a notification to the operator of the implement/vehicle 10/204 (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator)…”Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that controller 210 may initiate one or more control actions when a seedbed floor profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold, and that one such control action is notifying the operator of the vehicle/implement. Kovach further discloses transmitting instructions to user interface 218 to provide a visual or audible notification or indicator to the operator of the implement/vehicle. Because Kovach’s vehicle/implement is an agricultural implement, Kovach expressly discloses wherein the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement.
• of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”Kovach, [0047].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle/implement 10/204 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses that each seedbed floor profile may be associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s), that profile variation may be associated with the locations of detection assemblies, that differentials may be determined between three or more seedbed floor profiles, and that the operator may be notified when the profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold. These teachings provide a location-correlated profile-monitoring and notification framework.
Kovach does not expressly disclose a failed shear pin or a notification that literally states the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement, Kowalchuk’s first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event has occurred, and Kovach’s second sensor data identifies the location-correlated aft soil-profile anomaly behind the affected shank path.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for the operator notification to include the location information already determined by the controller. A PHOSITA would have recognized that including the identified shank-path location in the operator notification would provide more useful diagnostic information than a notification limited to the existence of the profile anomaly alone. This is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions: using Kovach’s known operator-notification function to communicate the location-correlated anomaly information determined by Kovach’s known profile-location analysis, in the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk system where that anomaly corresponds to a failed shear-pin shank path.
The term each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is satisfied because Kovach’s per-profile/per-sensor association and three-or-more-profile embodiment support location-correlated monitoring of multiple shank paths. When more than one failed-shank location is identified, including each identified location in the operator notification would have been an obvious extension of Kovach’s notification framework and would preserve the location-identification functionality of the parent system. Thus, Kovach renders obvious notifying the operator of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 14
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that wherein the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural implement of claim 13 having ground-engaging shank assemblies restrained by shear pins until obstruction-induced failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-stage failure-detection and control-action framework by teaching that a controller can initiate a response when abnormal vibration conditions are detected. Kovach provides the second-stage location-correlated aft soil-profile analysis and expressly teaches an operator-notification control action when a profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold.
A PHOSITA would have recognized that including the identified shank-path location in the operator notification would provide more useful diagnostic information than a notification limited to the existence of the profile anomaly alone. Since the combined system identifies which shank path corresponds to the failed shear pin, including that location in the operator notification would predictably improve maintenance response, reduce unnecessary inspection of unaffected shanks, reduce downtime, and allow the operator to take targeted corrective action. The combination preserves the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event occurred, second sensor data identifies where the failed shank is located, and the control action notifies the operator of that location.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kovach already teaches controller-generated operator notifications based on location-correlated soil-profile anomalies, and Kowalchuk already teaches controller-initiated responses to abnormal vibration conditions. Combining those teachings would have been the predictable use of known agricultural implement monitoring and notification functions according to their established purposes.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur establishes the primary agricultural implement and shear-release shank environment of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added accelerometer limitation of Claim 15.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly disclose the following additional limitation of Claim 15:
• wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake further establishes the pivot-bolt/shear-pin shank structure of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added accelerometer limitation of Claim 15. The Mansur/Hake combination is established for the parent Claim 9 agricultural implement, and the only new Claim 15-specific limitation remains the accelerometer requirement.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitation of Claim 15 remains not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk discloses:
• wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
See at least:
“The vibration sensor 65 is used to sense vibrations of the air drill implement 14. In one embodiment, the vibration sensor 65 is an accelerometer.”
Kowalchuk, [0023].
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20.”
Kowalchuk, [0029].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly discloses vibration sensor 65 as a sensor used to sense vibrations of the agricultural implement and expressly identifies vibration sensor 65 as an accelerometer. Kowalchuk further discloses that vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on each row unit to detect vibration magnitude or bounce. In the Claim 9 combination, Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor corresponds to the claimed first sensor because it generates the first sensor data used for vibration-based failure detection. Therefore, Kowalchuk expressly discloses wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk for the Added Claim 15 Limitation
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement with Kowalchuk’s accelerometer-based vibration sensor so that wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical agricultural shank and shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the compatible agricultural implement vibration-sensing architecture and expressly teaches an accelerometer as the vibration sensor. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to use an accelerometer as the first sensor because an accelerometer is a known and predictable sensor for generating vibration data from an agricultural implement, row unit, tool bar, or frame. The modification is the predictable use of a known sensor according to its established function of detecting vibration or bounce.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 15
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that wherein the first sensor comprises an accelerometer.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor implementation by expressly teaching a vibration sensor, such as an accelerometer, for detecting vibration or bounce of the agricultural implement. Kovach completes the parent Claim 9 diagnostic architecture by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing used to identify the location of the affected shank after the vibration-based failure determination.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason and a reasonable expectation of success in using Kowalchuk’s accelerometer-based vibration sensor within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement because an accelerometer is a known and predictable sensor for generating vibration data from an agricultural implement frame, tool bar, or row unit. Using an accelerometer for the first sensor preserves the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event, and second sensor data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The agricultural implement of claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following additional limitation of Claim 16 remains not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk further establishes the first-sensor failure-detection and controller architecture of The agricultural implement of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the added Claim 16 limitation that the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Kowalchuk’s vibration-based controller architecture supplies the first-stage failure-detection context for the parent Claim 9 agricultural implement, while the second-sensor implementation is supplied or rendered obvious by Kovach.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to further configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement with Kowalchuk’s vibration sensor and controller-based failure-detection logic so that first sensor data is used to determine when a shear-pin failure event has occurred. Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical shear-pin failure environment, and Kowalchuk provides the complementary vibration-based sensing and controller architecture for detecting abnormal implement operation associated with a shear-release event.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following additional limitation of Claim 16 remains not explicitly disclosed:
• wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach discloses or renders obvious:
• wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
See at least:
“the seedbed floor sensor 126 may correspond to any other suitable sensor or sensing device configured to detect the position of the seedbed tool 114. For instance, the seedbed floor sensor 126 may correspond to an accelerometer, a linear potentiometer, a proximity sensor, and/or any other suitable transducer (e.g., ultrasonic, electromagnetic, infrared, etc.) that allows the position of the pivot arms 104, 106 to be directly or indirectly detected.”
Kovach, [0037].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly discloses seedbed floor sensor 126 and further discloses that the seedbed floor sensor may correspond to any other suitable sensor or sensing device configured to detect the position of the seedbed tool. Kovach expressly lists multiple alternative sensing technologies, including proximity, ultrasonic, electromagnetic, and infrared transducers. Kovach does not expressly use the phrase “vision-based sensor.” However, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s second sensor using a vision-based sensor, such as an optical camera, infrared-imaging sensor, stereo camera, structured-light sensor, time-of-flight camera, or depth-vision sensor, because Kovach expressly invites suitable sensor substitutions and expressly identifies non-contact or field-sensing technologies capable of indirectly detecting position.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because agricultural machine-vision and optical/depth sensing were known techniques for observing soil-surface features, crop rows, terrain contours, tool position, and profile-related field conditions. A vision-based sensor would predictably generate image, optical-depth, or surface-contour data from which the controller could determine whether the aft soil condition or tool-position-correlated soil profile deviates from expected operation. In the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach implement, this would allow the computing system to determine whether the aft soil profile indicates that a shank is no longer working the soil normally after a shear-pin failure event is detected.
This modification is the predictable substitution of one known sensing modality for another known sensing modality to perform the same function of generating data used to determine an aft soil/seedbed profile or profile-related tool position. The substitution would have yielded predictable results because Kovach already teaches an open-ended sensor architecture using “any other suitable sensor or sensing device” and identifies suitable non-contact sensing alternatives. Thus, Kovach renders obvious wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 16
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the agricultural implement established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that wherein the second sensor comprises a vision-based sensor.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment, including a ground-engaging shank restrained by a shear-release fastener or shear pin until an obstruction causes failure. Kowalchuk provides the first-stage vibration-based failure-detection architecture by using first sensor data to determine that a shear-release event has occurred. Kovach provides the second-stage aft soil-profile sensing architecture and expressly teaches that seedbed floor sensor 126 may be implemented using suitable alternative sensing devices or transducers for detecting position/profile information.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason and a reasonable expectation of success in using a vision-based sensor as the second sensor in the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement because vision-based sensing would provide non-contact observation of aft soil condition, terrain contour, seedbed profile, or soil-profile-related tool position behind the shank path. This would allow the computing system to determine whether the aft soil profile indicates that a shank is no longer working the soil normally after a shear-pin failure event is detected. The modification reflects the predictable substitution of one known sensing modality for another known sensing modality and preserves the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event, and vision-based second sensor data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 17,
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur teaches:
• A method for identifying broken shear pins on an agricultural implement, the method comprising:
See at least:
“there is illustrated a row cultivator 10 articulated to the rear of a prime mover 11 and employing a row following system 12 coupled to a tool bar 13. The tool bar 13 has shanks 14 carrying tools 15.”Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9-17.
“As soon as the tool 60 strikes an underground object, the bolt 70 fails as illustrated in FIG. 6.”Mansur, col. 4, ll. 19-23.
Rationale:
Mansur teaches the agricultural implement environment and shear-release failure context for the claimed method. Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9-17, establishes the agricultural implement, tool bar/frame, shanks, and ground-engaging tools. Mansur, col. 4, ll. 19-23, establishes the broken/failed shear-release condition because bolt 70 fails when tool 60 strikes an underground object. Mansur therefore starts the limiting preamble by teaching an agricultural implement having a shear-release failure condition. Mansur does not expressly teach the complete automated method of identifying broken shear pins using first sensor data, second sensor data, and a computing system; those method steps are supplied or rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
• receiving, with a computing system, first sensor data indicative of vibrations of a frame of an agricultural implement;
• determining, with the computing system,
• when a shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly of the agricultural implement has failed
• based on the received first sensor data;
• receiving, with the computing system, second sensor data indicative of a soil condition
• aft of a shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement;
• identifying, with the computing system,
• a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed; and
• initiating, with the computing system, a control action
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake teaches:
• when a shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly of the agricultural implement has failed
See at least:
“A mounting plate is attached to the rear of each upright support and a specially adapted ripper shank, with an attached deep penetrating ripper blade, is attachable to each plate via a pair of bolts which extend through respective mounting bores in the plate.”
Hake, col. 2, ll. 18-25.
“One of the bolts in each pair is a pivot bolt which provides a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing. The other bolt is a shear pin which is designed to shear off should the ripper blade encounter an obstruction…”
Hake, col. 2, ll. 25-31.
Rationale:
Hake teaches the physical shear-pin failure condition recited within the method. Hake expressly teaches a ground-engaging ripper shank attached by a pivot bolt and a shear pin, where the shear pin is designed to shear off when the ripper blade encounters an obstruction. Hake therefore supplies the specific shear-pin failure event for when a shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly of the agricultural implement has failed. Hake does not teach the computing-system determination or the first-sensor-data basis; those aspects are supplied by Kowalchuk.
Motivation to Combine Mansur and Hake
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur and Hake before them, to modify Mansur’s row-cultivator shank/shear-release assembly by incorporating Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin mounting arrangement.
Mansur and Hake are analogous agricultural implement references directed to ground-engaging shanks/tools and are reasonably pertinent to the same problem of protecting ground-engaging shanks from underground obstructions using release fasteners. Although Hake teaches a ripper shank and Mansur teaches a cultivator shank, both operate ground-engaging shanks in a soil-obstruction loading context. A PHOSITA would have specifically looked to Hake because Hake teaches a more explicit pivot-bolt/shear-pin arrangement in which the shank is held during normal operation and can swing about a defined pivot point when the shear pin fails. This provides a predictable and mechanically controlled release structure for the Mansur shank environment. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references use conventional ground-engaging agricultural shank structures and mechanical release fasteners operating in response to obstruction loading.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, Hake supplies the physical shear-pin failure event, but the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• receiving, with a computing system, first sensor data indicative of vibrations of a frame of an agricultural implement;
• determining, with the computing system,
• based on the received first sensor data;
• receiving, with the computing system, second sensor data indicative of a soil condition
• aft of a shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement;
• identifying, with the computing system,
• a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed; and
• initiating, with the computing system, a control action
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk renders obvious:
• receiving, with a computing system, first sensor data indicative of vibrations of a frame of an agricultural implement;
See at least:
“The controller 70 receives feedback signals from a speed sensor 82 and from the vibration sensor 65.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].Supports computing-system receipt of first sensor feedback.
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”
Kowalchuk, [0029].
Supports vibration data and optional tool-bar/frame mounting.
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100 on the air drill 16 and/or the controller 70 in the tractor 12.”
Kowalchuk, [0034].
Supports frame/tool-bar vibration data and overall implement vibration feedback.
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly teaches controller 70 receiving feedback signals from vibration sensor 65. Controller 70 corresponds to a computing system under broadest reasonable interpretation because it receives sensor feedback, executes stored control logic, compares signals to stored values, and generates control outputs. Kowalchuk further teaches that vibration sensor 65 detects vibration magnitude or bounce and may be mounted on tool bar 18, a frame member of the agricultural implement, to provide a feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the implement. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly teaches receiving, with a computing system, first sensor data indicative of vibrations of a frame of an agricultural implement;.
• determining, with the computing system,
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk teaches a computing system that receives vibration feedback, monitors vibration magnitude, compares the vibration feedback to a preset or predefined vibration threshold, and executes a routine when the threshold condition is satisfied. Thus, Kowalchuk teaches determining, with the computing system.
• based on the received first sensor data;
See at least:
“The controller 70 receives feedback signals from a speed sensor 82 and from the vibration sensor 65.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk teaches that controller 70 receives vibration sensor feedback and monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by vibration sensor 65. In the combined method, the received vibration sensor feedback is the claimed first sensor data. Therefore, the computing-system determination is made based on the received first sensor data.
Kowalchuk Applied to the Hake Shear-Pin Failure Event
As applied to the shear-pin failure event taught by Hake, Kowalchuk renders obvious the complete determining step:
• determining, with the computing system, / when a shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly of the agricultural implement has failed / based on the received first sensor data;
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk does not expressly teach determining shear-pin failure. However, in the Mansur/Hake shear-pin assembly, the shear pin restrains the shank in a normal ground-working condition and fails when the tool encounters an obstruction. A PHOSITA would understand that such shear-pin failure transitions the shank from a restrained ground-working condition to a released or pivoted condition, producing a change in frame loading and vibration characteristics, including an impulse event at failure, a subsequent reduction in soil-engagement forces, or an anomalous vibration pattern from a freely pivoting shank.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to configure Kowalchuk’s vibration-threshold architecture to determine shear-pin failure in the Mansur/Hake assembly based on the received first sensor data because Kowalchuk already teaches using vibration feedback and preset vibration thresholds to detect abnormal implement vibration conditions. To distinguish a shear-release event from ordinary operating vibration, a PHOSITA would have calibrated the preset or predefined vibration threshold using baseline field vibration data and known obstruction/shear-release vibration signatures, so that the threshold corresponds to an abnormal vibration condition associated with shear-pin failure rather than normal tillage vibration. Such threshold calibration is a routine implementation detail for vibration-based condition monitoring systems and is consistent with Kowalchuk’s teaching that the preset value may be configured and stored before operation.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 17 does not require the computing system to prove that shear-pin failure is the only possible cause of the vibration anomaly. It requires determining that the shear pin has failed based on received first sensor data, which is rendered obvious by correlating Kowalchuk’s detected abnormal vibration condition with the known Mansur/Hake shear-release event. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the references involve compatible agricultural implements having frame-mounted or tool-bar-mounted structures subject to vibration, bounce, obstruction loading, and controller-based monitoring.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk before them, to configure the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement method to receive first sensor data indicative of vibrations of a frame of an agricultural implement with a computing system and to determine, with the computing system, when a shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly of the agricultural implement has failed based on the received first sensor data.
Mansur and Hake provide the mechanical shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the complementary vibration-sensor and controller-based threshold architecture for evaluating abnormal vibration conditions in an agricultural implement. A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to apply Kowalchuk’s vibration-threshold logic to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin shank assembly because a shear-pin failure caused by obstruction impact predictably changes vibration behavior transmitted through the shank assembly and implement frame. A PHOSITA would have further calibrated the threshold to correlate with known shear-release events rather than ordinary operating vibration. Using an existing vibration-threshold controller to detect that abnormal condition is the predictable application of a known sensing/control technique to a known agricultural implement failure condition. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kowalchuk already receives vibration feedback, compares the feedback to a preset threshold, and initiates a controller response when abnormal vibration is detected. This reasoning is consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), which recognizes that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement may be obvious when it yields predictable results.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• receiving, with the computing system, second sensor data indicative of a soil condition
• aft of a shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement;
• identifying, with the computing system,
• a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
• based on the second sensor data
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed; and
• initiating, with the computing system, a control action
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach teaches or renders obvious:
• receiving, with the computing system, second sensor data indicative of a soil condition
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 (e.g., via the communicative link 216).”
Kovach, [0046].
Supports computing-system receipt of second sensor data.
“Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Supports soil-condition/profile data derived from the second sensor data.
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 via communicative link 216 and analyzing/processing that data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor. A seedbed floor profile is data indicative of a soil condition under broadest reasonable interpretation because it represents soil/seedbed contour, height, depth, or vertical profile. Thus, Kovach expressly teaches receiving, with the computing system, second sensor data indicative of a soil condition.
• aft of a shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly
See at least:
“if the implement 10 is configured as a cultivator or ripper, the implement 10 may include a plurality of rows or ranks of ground penetrating shanks.”
Kovach, [0024].
Supports cultivator/ripper shank context.
“one detection assembly 100 is coupled to each section 36, 38, 40 of the frame 16. However, in alternative embodiments, each section 36, 38, 40 may include more than one detection assembly 100, such as two or more detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0027].
Supports multiple detection assemblies and increased lateral sensing resolution.
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
Supports aft positioning relative to ground-penetrating tools.
Rationale:
Kovach teaches that the implement may be configured as a cultivator or ripper having rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks and that each detection assembly may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools relative to the direction of travel. Although Kovach expressly describes section-level detection assemblies, Kovach also teaches that each frame section may include more than one detection assembly and that sensor data may be associated with respective seedbed floor profiles. A PHOSITA seeking failed-shank localization in the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement would have had a specific reason to increase sensor density, use multiple detection assemblies, use a sensor array, or divide a sensor field of view into shank-path regions so that aft soil-condition data could be associated with each ground-engaging shank path. This would have been a predictable design choice because higher lateral sensing resolution provides greater diagnostic precision. Thus, Kovach teaches or renders obvious second sensor data aft of a shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly.
• relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement;
See at least:
“the implement 10 may be configured to be towed along a forward direction of travel 12…”
Kovach, [0020].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches a forward direction of travel 12 and detection assemblies positioned aft of ground-penetrating tools relative to that direction. Thus, Kovach expressly teaches relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural implement;.
• identifying, with the computing system,
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches controller-based association of seedbed floor profiles with sensor data and location-correlated detection assemblies. Such controller processing corresponds to identifying, with the computing system.
• a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
Supports per-sensor/per-profile association.
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Supports location-correlated profile variation.
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
Supports multiple profile comparisons for multiple locations.
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches associating each seedbed profile with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s), associating vertical profile variation with the locations of detection assemblies, and determining differentials between three or more seedbed floor profiles. Kovach does not expressly teach failed shear pins. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach method, Kowalchuk’s first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event has occurred, and Kovach’s second sensor data identifies the location-correlated aft soil-profile anomaly behind the affected shank path.
A shank released from its normal ground-working position after shear-pin failure would no longer work the soil in the same manner as a properly restrained shank. The resulting aft soil condition need not be completely absent to be detectable; the failure may produce a shallower profile, asymmetric profile, narrower profile, displaced soil pattern, reduced furrow/soil disturbance, or absence of expected tillage. Any such deviation from the expected aft profile constitutes a detectable soil-condition difference along that shank path. Therefore, the location of the abnormal aft profile corresponds to a location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
For multiple simultaneous failures, Kovach’s per-profile/per-sensor association and three-or-more-profile embodiment support independent identification because each profile is associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s). When the sensor profiles, detection assemblies, or sensor regions are associated with respective shank paths, each failed shank path can be independently identified from its corresponding abnormal aft profile data.
• based on the second sensor data
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches receiving and analyzing data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 to determine seedbed floor profiles. Because seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 correspond to the claimed second sensor, Kovach expressly teaches location identification based on the second sensor data.
• in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed; and
See at least:
“As such, when the differential between the first and second seedbed floor profiles exceeds a predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions to address the differential.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches conditional controller logic in which a controller response follows a detected seedbed-profile condition. Kowalchuk likewise teaches conditional trigger-response controller logic in which vibration-threshold satisfaction causes the controller to execute a routine. In the combined method, it would have been obvious to use the vibration-based shear-pin-failure determination as the trigger for the Kovach soil-profile localization routine because the first sensor data answers whether a shear-release event occurred, while the second sensor data answers where the resulting abnormal soil condition occurred.
This gating sequence would have provided specific functional benefits. It would reduce false positives from ordinary soil variation because the system would not treat every aft soil-profile variation as a failed shear pin unless the first-stage vibration data first indicated a likely shear-release event. It would also reduce unnecessary processing or operator alerts by performing failed-shank localization as a targeted follow-up after the failure event is detected. Thus, the combined teachings render obvious identifying the failed-shank location in response to determining that the shear pin of the at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed.
• initiating, with the computing system, a control action
See at least:
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“In general, such control action(s) may be associated with or otherwise intended to reduce or otherwise address the determined seedbed floor profile differential.”
Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches controller 210 initiating one or more control actions when a seedbed-profile threshold condition is detected, and further teaches that such control actions are associated with or intended to reduce or address the determined seedbed floor profile differential. Controller 210 corresponds to a computing system. Thus, Kovach expressly teaches initiating, with the computing system, a control action.
• when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
See at least:
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach teaches that the determined seedbed-profile differential is associated with detection-assembly locations and that controller 210 initiates control action when the profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold. In the combined method, the location-correlated profile anomaly corresponds to the location of the failed shank. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to initiate the control action after at least one failed-shank location is identified, rather than after a vibration event alone, because acting after location identification provides a targeted response to the confirmed failed-shank location. Thus, Kovach renders obvious initiating the control action when the location of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is identified.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 17
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the method for the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach agricultural implement to receive first sensor data indicative of vibrations of the frame, determine from the received first sensor data when a shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed, receive second sensor data indicative of an aft soil condition behind the shank paths, identify each failed-shank location based on the second sensor data in response to the failure determination, and initiate a control action when at least one failed-shank location is identified.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the first-stage vibration-based failure-detection architecture by teaching receipt and processing of vibration sensor feedback with a controller. Kovach provides the second-stage aft soil-profile/location-identification architecture and the controller-initiated control-action framework.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to combine these teachings because vibration sensing identifies that an abnormal shear-release event occurred, but aft soil-condition sensing identifies which shank path is no longer producing the expected soil condition. A PHOSITA working with the Mansur/Hake shank arrangement would have looked to Kovach because Kovach expressly teaches aft seedbed-floor profile sensing behind ground-penetrating tools and expressly discloses applicability to cultivator or ripper implements having rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks. Kovach’s sensing architecture is technically compatible with Mansur/Hake because all involve ground-engaging agricultural tools moving through soil, and the aft soil profile behind a released shank would predictably differ from the aft soil profile behind a properly restrained shank, whether the deviation is shallower, asymmetric, displaced, reduced, or absent.
Using the first-stage vibration determination to trigger the second-stage soil-profile localization would reduce unnecessary localization processing, reduce false positives from ordinary soil variation, and prevent unnecessary control actions or operator alerts when no failure event is indicated by the first sensor data. Initiating a control action after identifying at least one failed-shank location would provide a targeted response to the confirmed failed-shank location and reduce continued operation with a failed shank.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kowalchuk already teaches controller-based vibration monitoring and response, while Kovach already teaches controller-based soil-profile monitoring, location-correlated profile analysis, predetermined threshold comparison, and control action. The combination is the predictable use of known agricultural implement monitoring, controller-processing, localization, and control-response functions according to their established purposes under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The method of claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 18. Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment; Kowalchuk provides the first-stage vibration-sensing and vibration-threshold logic; and Kovach provides the second-stage aft soil-condition/location-identification and control-action framework.
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur teaches the agricultural implement and shear-release context of The method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach the added Claim 18 vibration-magnitude threshold limitations.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly teach the following Claim 18 limitations:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the method further comprises:
• determining, with the computing system, a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
• comparing, with the computing system, the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and
• determining, with the computing system, that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake establishes the physical shear-pin failure event used in the parent Claim 17 method but does not explicitly teach the added Claim 18 vibration-magnitude threshold processing.
See at least:
“One of the bolts in each pair is a pivot bolt which provides a pivot point about which the ripper shank can swing. The other bolt is a shear pin which is designed to shear off should the ripper blade encounter an obstruction…”
Hake, col. 2, ll. 25-31.
Rationale:
Hake expressly teaches the physical shear-pin failure event in a ground-engaging shank assembly. However, Hake does not teach determining shear-pin failure based on first sensor data, does not teach determining a magnitude of frame vibrations, and does not teach comparing that magnitude to a predetermined vibration threshold value. Accordingly, Hake is not mapped as disclosing the Claim 18 sensor-based determining limitation; Hake supplies the physical shear-pin failure context to which Kowalchuk’s vibration-threshold logic is applied.
Motivation to Combine Mansur and Hake
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur and Hake before them, to modify Mansur’s agricultural shank/shear-release assembly by incorporating Hake’s pivot-bolt/shear-pin mounting arrangement.
Mansur and Hake are technically compatible agricultural implement references because both involve ground-engaging shanks operating in soil-obstruction loading environments. Although Hake teaches a ripper shank and Mansur teaches a cultivator shank, both use ground-engaging shank structures subject to obstruction forces. Hake provides a predictable shear-pin structure in which the shank remains restrained during normal operation and can swing about a defined pivot point after shear-pin failure.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following Claim 18 limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the method further comprises:
• determining, with the computing system, a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
• comparing, with the computing system, the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and
• determining, with the computing system, that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalch renders obvious:
• wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the method further comprises:
See at least:
“The controller 70 executes a program, stored in memory 72, to monitor and, if necessary, reduce the magnitude of vibration.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value. If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
The parent method of claim 17 is established by the combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach. Kowalchuk supplies the additional Claim 18 manner of performing the first-stage failure determination because Kowalchuk teaches controller-based vibration monitoring, receipt of vibration-magnitude feedback, comparison to a preset maximum vibration magnitude, and execution of controller logic when the vibration feedback exceeds the preset value. Kowalchuk does not expressly identify the monitored event as shear-pin failure. However, when Kowalchuk’s vibration-threshold architecture is applied to the Mansur/Hake shear-pin shank assembly, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to perform the Claim 17 shear-pin failure determination using the additional vibration-magnitude threshold steps recited in Claim 18.
• determining, with the computing system, a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data;
See at least:
“A vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, is mounted on each row unit 20 to detect a magnitude of vibration, or bounce, present on each row unit 20. Optionally, a single vibration sensor 65 may be mounted on the air drill 16, for example, on the tool bar 18.”Kowalchuk, [0029].
“The vibration sensor 65 may be rigidly mounted, for example to the tool bar 18 of the air drill 16. A single feedback signal corresponding to overall vibration of the air drill 16 is provided to the controller 100 on the air drill 16 and/or the controller 70 in the tractor 12.”Kowalchuk, [0034].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65…”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly teaches vibration sensor 65 detecting a magnitude of vibration or bounce and further teaches an embodiment in which vibration sensor 65 is mounted on tool bar 18. Tool bar 18 is a frame member of the agricultural implement, and the feedback signal corresponds to overall vibration of the air drill implement. Kowalchuk also teaches that controller 70 monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by vibration sensor 65. In the combined method, vibration sensor 65 corresponds to the claimed first sensor. Therefore, Kowalchuk expressly teaches determining, with the computing system, a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data.
• comparing, with the computing system, the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and
See at least:
“At steps 144 and 146, the controller 70 receives the feedback signal corresponding to a vibration magnitude from the vibration sensor 65 and reads a preset value, corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The preset value may be entered, for example, by an operator via the user interface 74 and stored in memory 72.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“At step 148, the controller compares the feedback signal to the preset value.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly teaches that controller 70 receives a feedback signal corresponding to vibration magnitude, reads a preset value corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude, and compares the feedback signal to the preset value. Kowalchuk further teaches that the preset value may be entered by an operator via user interface 74 and stored in memory 72. Because the value is entered, selected, or stored before the comparison operation, it is a predetermined vibration threshold value. Thus, Kowalchuk expressly teaches comparing, with the computing system, the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value.
• determining, with the computing system, that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
See at least:
“If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk expressly teaches controller action when vibration magnitude exceeds a preset or predefined vibration value. Kowalchuk does not expressly identify that threshold-exceedance condition as shear-pin failure. However, in the Mansur/Hake implement, the shear pin restrains the shank until obstruction-induced failure. A PHOSITA would have recognized that shear-pin failure causes a detectable abnormal vibration response transmitted through the shank assembly and frame.
That vibration response would not be limited to a single instantaneous spike. A shear-pin failure caused by obstruction impact would reasonably produce an initial impulse or shock at the moment of release and may also produce a subsequent vibration-pattern change caused by altered or absent soil-engagement forces, a released or lifted shank, dragging, rattling, or freely pivoting motion. These combined characteristics would provide a more discriminating vibration signature than ordinary continuous field bounce alone.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to calibrate Kowalchuk’s predetermined vibration threshold value using baseline field vibration data and known obstruction/shear-release vibration signatures so that the threshold distinguishes ordinary field vibration or continuous bounce from abnormal vibration associated with shear-pin failure. This calibration is a routine implementation of Kowalchuk’s configurable threshold architecture because Kowalchuk already teaches an operator-entered preset value stored in memory and used for vibration-threshold comparison.
A PHOSITA would have selected magnitude-threshold comparison as the technically obvious detection mechanism because Kowalchuk already performs magnitude monitoring and threshold comparison using the existing controller and vibration sensor. Relative to alternatives such as position sensing, torque sensing, or frequency-domain analysis, magnitude-threshold comparison would have been the most straightforward and operationally compatible implementation within Kowalchuk’s disclosed architecture because it requires only calibration of the existing predetermined vibration threshold value rather than adding a different sensing subsystem or a materially different analysis framework. Thus, Kowalchuk renders obvious determining, with the computing system, that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 18
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the method established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that, The method of claim 17, wherein, when determining that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed based on the first sensor data, the method further comprises: determining, with the computing system, a magnitude of the vibrations of the frame of the agricultural implement based on the first sensor data; comparing, with the computing system, the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame to a predetermined vibration threshold value; and determining, with the computing system, that the shear pin of at least one ground-engaging shank assembly has failed when the magnitude of the vibrations of the frame exceeds the predetermined vibration threshold value.
Mansur and Hake provide the underlying agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the first-sensor implementation and vibration-threshold logic by teaching a vibration sensor that detects vibration magnitude, a controller that compares vibration feedback to a stored preset value corresponding to a maximum vibration magnitude, and a controller routine triggered when the threshold is exceeded. Kovach completes the parent Claim 17 method by providing aft soil-condition/profile sensing, location-correlated profile analysis, and control action after failed-location identification.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason and a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Kowalchuk’s magnitude-threshold logic within the Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach method because the threshold comparison provides a predictable and configurable way to detect abnormal frame vibration associated with a shear-release event. The resulting method preserves the parent two-stage diagnostic sequence: first sensor data detects the shear-pin failure event, and second sensor data localizes the failed shank.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The method of claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 19. Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment; Kowalchuk provides the first-stage vibration-based failure-detection logic; and Kovach provides the second-stage aft soil-profile/location-identification logic.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly teach the following Claim 19 limitations:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the method further comprises:
• determining, with the computing system, a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data;
• comparing, with the computing system, the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
• identifying, with the computing system, the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake establishes the physical shear-pin failure environment used in the parent Claim 17 method but does not explicitly teach the added Claim 19 soil-profile threshold processing.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following Claim 19 limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the method further comprises:
• determining, with the computing system, a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data;
• comparing, with the computing system, the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
• identifying, with the computing system, the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk completes the first-stage failure-detection portion of the parent method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach the added Claim 19 soil-profile threshold limitations.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following Claim 19 limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the method further comprises:
• determining, with the computing system, a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data;
• comparing, with the computing system, the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
• identifying, with the computing system, the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach renders obvious:
• wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the method further comprises:
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 … Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
Rationale:
This is satisfied by the full Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach combination because Claim 19 depends from Claim 17, and Claim 17 is established by that full four-reference combination. Kovach supplies the second-stage soil-profile implementation within that established method context. Specifically, Kovach teaches controller-based processing of second sensor data to determine seedbed floor profiles, association of profiles with sensor data, and association of profile variation with detection-assembly locations. In the combined method, Kowalchuk first determines that a shear-pin failure event occurred, and Kovach’s second sensor data is then used to identify which shank path has the resulting abnormal aft soil profile. Thus, Kovach teaches or renders obvious the additional method context recited by wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the method further comprises.
• determining, with the computing system, a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data;
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to receive data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 (e.g., via the communicative link 216).”
Kovach, [0046].
“Thereafter, the controller 210 may be configured to analyze/process the received data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor.”
Kovach, [0046].
“if the implement 10 is configured as a cultivator or ripper, the implement 10 may include a plurality of rows or ranks of ground penetrating shanks.”
Kovach, [0024].
“each detection assembly 100 may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools of the implement 10 and forward of the surface-finishing tools of the implement 10 relative to the direction of travel 12.”
Kovach, [0028].
“the seedbed floor sensor 126 may correspond to any other suitable sensor or sensing device configured to detect the position of the seedbed tool 114.”
Kovach, [0037].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches controller 210 receiving data from seedbed floor sensor(s) 126 and analyzing/processing that data to determine one or more profiles of the seedbed floor. A seedbed floor profile is a soil dimension profile under broadest reasonable interpretation because it represents soil/seedbed contour, height, depth, or vertical profile. Kovach further teaches that the implement may be configured as a cultivator or ripper having rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks, and that detection assemblies may be positioned aft of the ground-penetrating tools relative to the direction of travel.
Although Kovach expressly describes detection assemblies at section or assembly locations, Kovach also teaches multiple detection assemblies, sensor/profile association, and an open-ended sensor architecture in which the seedbed floor sensor may be any suitable sensor or sensing device. A PHOSITA seeking failed-shank localization in the Mansur/Hake agricultural implement would have had a specific reason to increase sensor density, use multiple detection assemblies, use a sensor array, or divide a sensor field of view into shank-path regions so that aft soil-profile data could be associated with each ground-engaging shank path. Kovach’s open-ended sensor architecture supports scalability of the detection system to per-shank or shank-path-correlated density. Thus, Kovach teaches or renders obvious determining, with the computing system, a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data.
• comparing, with the computing system, the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and
See at least:
“the controller 210 may be configured to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles to determine a differential between such profiles.”
Kovach, [0047].
“the predetermined threshold used by the controller 210 to compare the determined seedbed floor profiles may be selected to prevent the controller 210 from initiating control action(s) when only minor differences exist between the seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0049].
“the predetermined threshold may be a differential between the determined seedbed floor profiles that is great enough to be indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 204.”
Kovach, [0049].
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches controller 210 comparing determined seedbed floor profiles and using a predetermined threshold to distinguish minor profile differences from profile differences significant enough to indicate poor seedbed quality or a need for adjustment. Under BRI, predetermined soil dimension profile threshold encompasses a threshold established, selected, calibrated, or stored before the comparison operation. Kovach’s predetermined threshold satisfies that requirement because it is selected and used by the controller before initiating the corresponding control action.
Kovach does not expressly phrase the threshold as “a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly.” However, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to implement Kovach’s predetermined profile-threshold comparison as a per-shank or per-shank-path lower-bound threshold in the Mansur/Hake system because each shank path would normally produce an expected aft soil profile when the shank is properly restrained and ground-engaging. Comparing each measured aft soil profile to a corresponding predetermined soil dimension profile threshold would be a predictable implementation of Kovach’s threshold-based profile-anomaly detection for failed-shank localization.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kovach already teaches controller-based profile comparison, predetermined thresholds, and association of each profile with sensor data. Selection of a per-shank minimum-profile threshold value would have been a design choice within the range of ordinary skill because Kovach expressly teaches selecting thresholds to distinguish minor differences from significant seedbed-profile conditions. Scaling that architecture to each shank path would provide the predictable benefit of more precise localization. Thus, Kovach renders obvious comparing, with the computing system, the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly.
• and identifying, with the computing system, the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
See at least:
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
Rationale:
Kovach teaches associating each seedbed profile with sensor data, associating vertical profile variation with detection-assembly locations, and comparing multiple seedbed floor profiles. Kovach does not expressly teach failed shear pins or a profile “falls below” formulation. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach method, Kowalchuk’s first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event has occurred, and Kovach’s second sensor data identifies the location-correlated aft soil-profile anomaly behind the affected shank path.
When a shear pin fails, the released shank no longer applies normal ground-engaging force to the soil in the same manner as a properly restrained shank, resulting in a predictably different aft soil condition. More specifically, a released shank would predictably produce a shallower or absent furrow, reduced soil disturbance, or an otherwise lower soil-profile value relative to the minimum expected profile produced by a properly engaged shank. Thus, the profile anomaly is directionally below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold when the threshold is set as a minimum acceptable aft soil profile for normal shank engagement.
This is not a change in principle of operation. It is the predictable use of Kovach’s threshold-based profile comparison to identify a location-correlated soil-profile anomaly in the Mansur/Hake shear-pin failure environment. For multiple failed shanks, Kovach’s per-profile/per-sensor association and three-or-more-profile embodiment support independent identification of each affected shank path. Thus, Kovach renders obvious identifying, with the computing system, the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 19
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the method established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that The method of claim 17, wherein, when identifying the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on the second sensor data, the method further comprises: determining, with the computing system, a soil dimension profile aft of the shank portion of each ground-engaging shank assembly relative to the direction of travel of the agricultural implement based on the second sensor data; comparing, with the computing system, the soil dimension profile to a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each ground-engaging shank assembly; and identifying, with the computing system, the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin when the soil dimension profile falls below the predetermined soil dimension profile threshold.
Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the first-stage vibration-based failure determination. Kovach provides the second-stage aft soil-profile sensing, profile comparison, predetermined-threshold logic, and location-correlated profile analysis.
A PHOSITA would have had a specific technical reason to combine these teachings because the first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event occurred, while the second sensor data determines which shank path no longer produces the expected aft soil condition. A PHOSITA would have looked to Kovach because Kovach expressly teaches aft seedbed-floor profile sensing behind ground-penetrating tools and expressly discloses applicability to cultivator or ripper implements having rows or ranks of ground-penetrating shanks. Kovach’s architecture is technically compatible with the Mansur/Hake shank assembly because all involve ground-engaging tools moving through soil.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kovach already teaches receiving seedbed floor sensor data, determining seedbed profiles, associating profiles with sensor data, comparing profiles using predetermined thresholds, and associating profile variations with detection-assembly locations. Using a predetermined soil dimension profile threshold for each shank path would be a predictable calibration and scaling of Kovach’s profile-threshold architecture to the failed-shank localization problem. Selection of a per-shank minimum-profile threshold value would have been a routine design choice within ordinary skill because Kovach expressly teaches selecting threshold values to distinguish minor seedbed-profile differences from significant profile conditions requiring response. This is the predictable use of known agricultural implement sensing and controller-processing functions according to their established purposes under KSR.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach establishes The method of claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 20. Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment; Kowalchuk provides the first-stage failure-detection and control-action framework; and Kovach provides the second-stage location-correlated soil-profile analysis and operator-notification control action.
Disclosure by Mansur
Mansur teaches the agricultural implement and shear-release context of The method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach the added Claim 20 operator-notification limitation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by Mansur
Mansur does not explicitly teach the following Claim 20 limitations:
• wherein the control action comprises:
• notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Disclosure by Hake
Hake establishes the physical shear-pin failure context used in the parent Claim 17 method but does not explicitly teach the added Claim 20 operator-notification limitation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur and Hake
After combining the teachings of Mansur and Hake, the following Claim 20 limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• wherein the control action comprises:
• notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Disclosure by Kowalchuk
Kowalchuk teaches the general control-action framework of the parent method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach the specific Claim 20 operator-notification limitation.
See at least:
“The preset value may be entered, for example, by an operator via the user interface 74 and stored in memory 72.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“If the feedback signal from the vibration sensor 65 exceeds the preset value, the controller 70 executes a routine to adjust the command for the operating parameter at Step 150.”
Kowalchuk, [0031].
“The controller 70 executes a program that monitors the magnitude of vibration detected by the vibration sensor 65 and, if the magnitude exceeds a first predefined value, the controller 70 modifies the reference signal 77 output to the actuator 78.”
Kowalchuk, [0032].
Rationale:
Kowalchuk teaches controller-initiated control action in response to abnormal vibration conditions. Kowalchuk also teaches operator interaction through user interface 74, confirming that the controller architecture includes operator-communication infrastructure. This makes operator notification architecturally consistent with Kowalchuk’s existing controller/user-interface framework. However, Kowalchuk does not teach that the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin. That specific notification content is supplied or rendered obvious by Kovach.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Taught by the Combination of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk
After combining the teachings of Mansur, Hake, and Kowalchuk, the following Claim 20 limitations remain not explicitly taught:
• wherein the control action comprises:
• notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Disclosure by Kovach
Kovach renders obvious:
• wherein the control action comprises:
See at least:
“As indicated above, in several embodiments, the controller 210 may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when the differential between determined seedbed floor profiles exceeds the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“In general, such control action(s) may be associated with or otherwise intended to reduce or otherwise address the determined seedbed floor profile differential.”
Kovach, [0050].
Rationale:
Kovach teaches controller 210 initiating one or more control actions when a seedbed-profile threshold condition occurs. Claim 20 specifies the composition of the control action recited in the parent method by requiring that the control action comprises notification. Kovach’s control-action disclosure provides the predicate framework for that notification-based control action.
• notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
See at least:
“when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 210 may be configured to notify the operator of vehicle/implement 10/204 that the differential has exceeded the predetermined threshold.”
Kovach, [0050].
“the controller 210 may be configured to transmit instructions to the user interface 218 … instructing the user interface 218 to provide a notification to the operator of the implement/vehicle 10/204 (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator)…”
Kovach, [0050].
“Each profile of the seedbed floor may, in turn, be associated with the data received from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s) 126.”
Kovach, [0046].
“The determined differential may be indicative of a variation in the vertical profile of seedbed … at the locations of the first and second detection assemblies 100.”
Kovach, [0047].
“the controller 210 may, in some embodiments, determine a differential between three or more seedbed floor profiles.”
Kovach, [0048].
Rationale:
Kovach expressly teaches notifying the operator of the vehicle/implement when the seedbed floor profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold. Kovach further teaches transmitting instructions to user interface 218 to provide a visual or audible notification or indicator to the operator of the implement/vehicle. Because the implement is an agricultural implement, Kovach teaches notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement.
Kovach also teaches that each seedbed floor profile may be associated with data from one of the seedbed floor sensor(s), that profile variation may be associated with detection-assembly locations, and that the controller may determine differentials between three or more seedbed floor profiles. Kovach does not expressly teach a notification that literally states the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin. However, in the combined Mansur/Hake/Kowalchuk/Kovach method, Kowalchuk’s first sensor data determines that a shear-pin failure event occurred, and Kovach’s second sensor data identifies the location-correlated aft soil-profile anomaly behind the affected shank path.
A PHOSITA would have found it obvious for the operator notification to include the already-determined failed-shank location because location information makes the notification actionable. Including the identified shank location in the operator notification affirmatively provides the operator with location-specific diagnostic information enabling targeted maintenance response, thereby reducing equipment downtime and minimizing unnecessary inspection of unaffected shanks.
The phrase each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin is satisfied because Kovach’s per-profile/per-sensor association and three-or-more-profile embodiment support location-correlated monitoring of multiple shank paths. This architecture supports simultaneous or sequential failure of multiple shanks on the same implement because each profile or sensor region can be independently associated with a corresponding shank path. When more than one failed-shank location is identified, notifying the operator of all identified failed-shank locations would have been a predictable implementation of Kovach’s notification framework. Thus, Kovach renders obvious notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Motivation to Combine Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach for Claim 20
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach before them, to configure the method established by Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach such that The method of claim 17, wherein the control action comprises: notifying, with the computing system, an operator of the agricultural implement of the location of each ground-engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin.
Mansur and Hake provide the agricultural shank/shear-pin failure environment. Kowalchuk provides the first-stage failure-detection and control-action framework. Kovach provides the second-stage location-correlated soil-profile analysis and expressly teaches operator notification as a control action when the profile differential exceeds a predetermined threshold.
A PHOSITA would have recognized that including the identified shank-path location in the operator notification would provide actionable diagnostic information. Since the combined method identifies which shank path corresponds to the failed shear pin, including that location in the operator notification would predictably improve maintenance response, reduce unnecessary inspection of unaffected shanks, reduce downtime, and allow the operator to take targeted corrective action.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kovach already teaches controller-generated operator notifications based on location-correlated soil-profile anomalies, and Kowalchuk already teaches controller-initiated responses to abnormal vibration conditions with an existing operator user-interface framework. Including location-specific content in an existing notification framework would require no new hardware; it would merely use the already-determined location information as the content of the notification generated or transmitted by the controller. Combining those teachings would have been the predictable use of known agricultural implement monitoring and notification functions according to their established purposes under KSR.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim Objection and Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to claims 4 and 9 have been entered and considered.
The amendment to claim 4 corrects the informality identified in the previous Office Action. Accordingly, the objection to claim 4 is withdrawn.
Upon further consideration of claims 4 and 9, including the claim language as a whole and in light of the specification, the matters previously identified are more appropriately treated as drafting informalities and do not render the scope of the claims unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s amendments have resolved those informalities.
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn. No rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained in this Office Action.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claims 1 through 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mansur in view of Hake, further in view of Kowalchuk, and further in view of Kovach. The amendments to independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been considered and do not render the rejection moot because the rejection, as maintained, expressly addresses the amended limitations.
Obviousness does not require that a single reference disclose the claimed invention or that each applied reference independently disclose every claimed function. Rather, the relevant inquiry is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 through 421 (2007); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); MPEP §§ 2141, 2142, 2143, and 2145.
1. Determining shear pin failure based on implement frame vibration data
Applicant first argues that Mansur and Hake are silent regarding vibrations and that Kowalchuk is directed to adjusting tractor or implement operating parameters rather than determining shear pin failure. Applicant therefore contends that the references provide no reason to determine shear pin failure based on implement frame vibration data.
The argument is not persuasive because it addresses the references substantially in isolation and does not give sufficient weight to what their combined teachings would have suggested.
Mansur expressly discloses a row cultivator having a tool bar carrying a plurality of shanks and ground working tools. Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9 through 17. More particularly, Mansur discloses tool 60 on the lower end of shank 61, with the shank retained by clamp 62 coupled to tool bar 65 about horizontal pivot axis 66. Mansur, col. 4, ll. 7 through 14. Bolt 70 secures the clamp against movement, and when tool 60 strikes an underground object, bolt 70 fails and the clamp and shank are released for rotation about pivot axis 66. Mansur, col. 4, ll. 14 through 27.
Hake supplies an even more express pivot bolt and shear pin implementation. Hake discloses a ripper shank attached to a mounting plate by a pair of bolts, one being a pivot attachment bolt about which the shank can swing and the other being a shear pin designed to shear when the ripper blade encounters an obstruction. Hake, col. 2, ll. 18 through 31. Hake further discloses that bolts 62 and 63 are received through the mounting structure, that bolt 63 is the shear pin, and that removal of shear pin 63 permits shank 64 to pivot about mounting bolt 62. Hake, col. 4, ll. 33 through 43 and 56 through 60.
Thus, Mansur and Hake collectively establish a known mechanical condition in which a loaded, ground engaging shank is restrained in its operative position by a shear fastener and is abruptly released for pivoting when the shear fastener fails.
Kowalchuk expressly supplies the compatible vibration sensing and controller architecture. Kowalchuk discloses vibration sensor 65, such as an accelerometer, mounted on a row unit to detect vibration magnitude or bounce. Kowalchuk further expressly provides that a single vibration sensor may instead be mounted on the agricultural implement, including tool bar 18. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0023] and [0029]. Kowalchuk explains that a sensor rigidly mounted on tool bar 18 supplies a feedback signal corresponding to the overall vibration of the agricultural implement. Kowalchuk, paragraph [0034].
Kowalchuk also discloses that controller 70 receives a vibration magnitude signal, reads a preset maximum vibration value, compares the vibration signal to the preset value, and executes a programmed routine when the detected vibration exceeds the preset value. Kowalchuk, paragraph [0031]. In another embodiment, controller 100 compares vibration magnitude to first and second predefined values, and those values are configurable by the operator. Kowalchuk, paragraph [0033].
Applicant is correct that Kowalchuk does not expressly label its detected vibration condition as “shear pin failure.” That fact does not defeat the rejection. Kowalchuk is relied upon for its disclosed vibration sensor, frame or tool bar mounting, vibration magnitude processing, configurable thresholds, and conditional controller response. Mansur and Hake are relied upon for the shear pin failure condition to which that known sensing technique would have been applied.
A person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected a collision sufficient to overcome and fracture a shear fastener, followed by abrupt release of a loaded shank from its restrained soil working position, to produce a detectable mechanical transient or change in the vibration transmitted through the shank mounting structure and implement frame. The relevant detectable condition could include the impact and shear impulse, a sudden change in vibration magnitude, a reduction in recurring soil engagement loading after the shank pivots out of its operative position, or another vibration pattern outside the expected range of a normally restrained shank. The claims do not require any particular frequency spectrum, waveform, duration, signal processing algorithm, exclusive causal diagnosis, or specified accuracy.
It therefore would have been obvious to configure Kowalchuk’s disclosed vibration monitoring and threshold comparison routine so that a vibration condition correlated through routine testing or calibration with the known Mansur and Hake shear release event causes the computing system to determine that at least one shear pin has failed. This constitutes the application of a known agricultural implement vibration monitoring technique to a known agricultural implement mechanism having a readily observable change in mechanical condition.
Applicant’s reliance on Kowalchuk’s stated use of the vibration signal to adjust speed or downward pressure is unpersuasive. A reference is relevant for everything it reasonably teaches to a person of ordinary skill and is not limited to the particular objective emphasized by the reference. Kowalchuk’s adjustment of an operating parameter is the response selected in Kowalchuk’s disclosed embodiments; it does not negate or teach away from using the same sensor data, comparison circuitry, configurable threshold, and conditional controller structure to identify another abnormal operating condition.
Nothing in Kowalchuk criticizes, discredits, or discourages using implement vibration information for fault detection. Nor would the proposed modification render Kowalchuk inoperable or alter its basic sensing principle. The vibration sensor would continue to measure implement vibration, the controller would continue to evaluate the sensed vibration against a stored criterion, and the controller would continue to initiate a programmed response when the criterion is satisfied.
The reason to make the modification is also not merely that the references could be combined. Mansur and Hake disclose a shear release mechanism whose failure releases a ground engaging shank from its intended working position. Mansur, col. 4, ll. 7 through 31; Hake, col. 2, ll. 18 through 31. Continued field operation with an unintentionally released shank would result in that shank no longer performing its intended soil working function. Kowalchuk provides a known way to monitor agricultural implement mechanical behavior during operation without stopping to inspect every row unit or shank. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0029] and [0031] through [0034]. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had a specific reason to apply Kowalchuk’s vibration monitoring technique to the Mansur and Hake shear release assembly to provide timely, automated indication of the known failure event, reduce continued operation with a released shank, and reduce the need for repeated manual inspection.
The modification would have required no change in the fundamental operation of Mansur, Hake, or Kowalchuk and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kowalchuk already measures the relevant physical phenomenon at the row unit, tool bar, or overall implement level and already provides operator configurable threshold based processing.
Accordingly, the combined teachings render obvious determining when a shear pin of at least one ground engaging shank assembly has failed based on first sensor data indicative of vibrations of the agricultural implement frame.
2. Identifying the location of each failed shank based on aft soil condition data
Applicant next argues that Kovach merely determines seedbed floor profiles and profile differentials and does not identify the location of a ground engaging shank assembly having a failed shear pin. Applicant further contends that the references provide no reason to perform such location identification in response to the vibration based failure determination.
This argument is also not persuasive.
Kovach expressly discloses an agricultural implement having a plurality of ground penetrating tools supported by an implement frame. Kovach, paragraph [0023]. Kovach further discloses a plurality of seedbed floor detection assemblies mounted across the implement, with each detection assembly capturing data indicative of the seedbed floor profile. Kovach, paragraphs [0019] and [0027].
Each detection assembly is positioned aft of the ground penetrating tools relative to the implement’s direction of travel. Kovach, paragraphs [0020] and [0028]. Kovach explains that this positioning places the detection assemblies adjacent to the ground penetrating tools forming the seedbed and improves the accuracy of the sensed relationship between the tools and the detection assemblies. Kovach, paragraph [0029]. Kovach also explains that the disclosed arrangement is exemplary and may be adapted to other suitable implement configurations. Kovach, paragraphs [0030] and [0031].
Kovach’s controller receives data from seedbed floor sensors 126 and processes the data to determine one or more seedbed floor profiles. Each profile may be associated with data from a respective seedbed floor sensor. Kovach, paragraph [0046]. The controller may determine first and second profiles from first and second detection assemblies, determine a differential representing variation in the seedbed profile at the locations of the respective detection assemblies, and extend that analysis to three or more profiles. Kovach, paragraphs [0047] and [0048].
Thus, contrary to Applicant’s characterization, Kovach does not merely generate an undifferentiated overall seedbed measurement. Kovach expressly associates respective sensor outputs and respective profiles with known detection assembly locations across the implement.
When Kovach’s aft sensing architecture is applied to the Mansur and Hake implement, each properly restrained shank works or penetrates the soil along its corresponding path. Mansur, col. 3, ll. 13 through 17 and col. 4, ll. 7 through 23; Hake, col. 2, ll. 18 through 31. When a shear pin fails and the associated shank pivots or is released from its normal operative position, that shank no longer works the soil in the same manner as the adjacent properly restrained shanks. The resulting soil condition or profile aft of that shank path would therefore be expected to differ from the profile produced behind normally operating shanks.
A person of ordinary skill implementing Kovach’s sensor arrangement in the Mansur and Hake implement would have had reason to associate each aft sensor region or profile output with the known lateral shank path located forward of that sensor region. An abnormal aft profile at a known sensor location would thereby identify the corresponding lateral location of the shank assembly that is no longer working the soil normally.
The claims do not require an absolute geographic coordinate, a particular mapping algorithm, or a one to one discrete sensor architecture stated in any particular terminology. The claimed “location” encompasses identifying the position of the affected shank on the implement, such as its lateral row, rank, or corresponding sensor region.
Kovach also expressly permits different numbers and arrangements of detection assemblies, including more than one detection assembly on a frame section, and associates individual sensor data with individual profiles. Kovach, paragraphs [0027] and [0046] through [0048]. Increasing the lateral sensing resolution, arranging the sensors or sensor regions to correspond to respective shank paths, or using a sensor array having outputs assigned to respective shank paths would have been a predictable implementation choice based on the diagnostic resolution desired. Such scaling does not change the operating principle of Kovach’s system. Each sensor continues to detect the aft seedbed profile, and the controller continues to associate the resulting profile with a known location.
The claimed “in response to” relationship also would have been obvious from the complementary information supplied by the two sensing stages. Kowalchuk’s first sensor indicates whether an abnormal mechanical event associated with shear release has occurred. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0031] through [0034]. Kovach’s second sensing arrangement supplies location correlated soil profile data identifying where the normal soil working operation has changed. Kovach, paragraphs [0046] through [0048].
A person of ordinary skill would have recognized the practical benefit of using the first determination as the trigger for the second stage localization process. The vibration signal answers whether a shear release event occurred, while the aft soil profile data answers which shank path exhibits the resulting abnormal soil condition. Triggering localization after the vibration based failure determination reduces the likelihood that ordinary variations in field topography will be incorrectly treated as a failed shank, avoids unnecessary fault localization processing when no failure event has been detected, and permits identification of each affected shank when more than one profile location is abnormal.
This is not an arbitrary sequence derived only from Applicant’s disclosure. Kowalchuk expressly teaches a conditional controller architecture in which satisfaction of a vibration criterion triggers a programmed routine. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0031] through [0033]. Kovach expressly teaches controller processing of location associated aft profile data. Kovach, paragraphs [0046] through [0048]. Using the known vibration condition as the trigger for the known location correlated profile analysis is the predictable coordination of two complementary agricultural implement monitoring functions.
Accordingly, the combined teachings render obvious identifying the location of each ground engaging shank assembly with a failed shear pin based on second sensor data indicative of the soil condition aft of the respective shank path, in response to determining from the first sensor data that at least one shear pin has failed.
3. Consideration of the claimed invention as a whole and alleged hindsight
Applicant further argues that the rejection improperly divides the claims into separate features, uses the claims as a roadmap to select features from four references, and fails to consider the claimed invention as a whole. Applicant relies on MPEP § 2141.02 and decisions including Jones v. Hardy, Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc., and Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.
The cited principles concerning hindsight and consideration of the claimed invention as a whole are acknowledged. They do not establish error in the present rejection.
Considering a claimed invention “as a whole” does not prohibit an examiner from identifying individual claim limitations or determining that different limitations are taught by different references. Section 103 expressly permits a rejection based on the combined teachings of multiple references. The examiner must determine whether the combined subject matter, including the claimed arrangement and interaction of the elements, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 through 421; In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; MPEP §§ 2142 and 2143.
The present rejection does not merely state that the references could be combined. It identifies:
Mansur’s agricultural implement, plurality of ground engaging shanks, pivoting shear release assembly, and actual shear fastener failure when a tool encounters an underground obstruction. Mansur, col. 3, ll. 9 through 17 and col. 4, ll. 7 through 27.
Hake’s specific pivot bolt and separate shear pin arrangement that restrains the ground engaging ripper shank until the shear pin is removed or shears upon encountering an obstruction. Hake, col. 2, ll. 18 through 31 and col. 4, ll. 33 through 43 and 56 through 60.
Kowalchuk’s agricultural implement vibration sensor mounted on a row unit or tool bar, generation of overall implement vibration data, configurable vibration thresholds, controller comparison of detected vibration with those thresholds, and conditional execution of a controller routine. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0023], [0029], and [0031] through [0034].
Kovach’s aft seedbed profile sensors, multiple location associated sensor outputs, controller determination of respective profiles, and detection of profile variations at the known locations of the detection assemblies. Kovach, paragraphs [0027] through [0031] and [0046] through [0048].
The rejection then explains how the references function together as a single diagnostic architecture. Mansur and Hake provide the known failure mechanism. Kowalchuk provides the first sensing stage that detects the occurrence of the abnormal release event. Kovach provides the second sensing stage that determines which shank path exhibits the resulting soil profile abnormality. The first stage therefore determines whether a failure occurred, and the second stage determines where it occurred.
The rejection also identifies reasons, grounded in the references and the ordinary technical considerations of agricultural implement operation, for making each modification. Hake’s pivot bolt and shear pin arrangement provides a specific and predictable implementation of Mansur’s obstruction responsive shear release structure. Kowalchuk’s vibration monitoring provides automated detection of the release event during field operation. Kovach’s location correlated aft soil sensing resolves which of the plurality of shanks is no longer working the soil normally. Coordinating the stages reduces manual inspection, limits continued operation with a released shank, distinguishes a global failure indication from the location of the affected shank, and reduces false location determinations caused by ordinary soil variation.
Each element continues to perform its known function in the proposed combination. The shear pin restrains and releases the shank. The vibration sensor measures implement vibration. The threshold processor identifies an abnormal vibration condition. The aft seedbed sensor measures soil profile. The controller associates profile variation with a known sensor location. Their coordinated use produces the predictable result of detecting and localizing a shear release event.
Moreover, all four references are within the agricultural implement field. Mansur and Hake concern ground engaging shanks having obstruction responsive shear release structures. Kowalchuk concerns vibration sensing and controller based monitoring of a tractor drawn agricultural implement. Kovach concerns controller based sensing of the soil condition aft of ground penetrating agricultural tools. The references are therefore analogous to the claimed subject matter and directed to technically compatible aspects of agricultural implement operation.
Applicant has not identified any disclosure that criticizes, discredits, or discourages the proposed combination. Applicant has also not shown that the modification would change any reference’s principle of operation, render any reference inoperable for its intended purpose, require more than ordinary skill, or yield an unpredictable result. Nor has Applicant submitted evidence of unexpected results, technical incompatibility, failure of others, industry skepticism, or another objective consideration that outweighs the evidence of obviousness.
Applicant’s reliance on the number of references is likewise unavailing. The use of four references does not, by itself, establish hindsight or nonobviousness. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991); MPEP § 2145. The references are not assembled merely because the claims reveal their existence. They address successive and complementary portions of the same agricultural implement problem: a known shear release mechanism, detection of the resulting abnormal mechanical condition, and localization of the released ground engaging tool using the condition of the soil behind it.
The authorities cited by Applicant do not require withdrawal where, as here, the Office has identified the differences between the claims and the references, explained the proposed modifications, supplied a reason for making those modifications, and evaluated the functional relationship of the resulting combination. Those authorities prohibit conclusory reconstruction using Applicant’s disclosure as the sole roadmap; they do not prohibit combining analogous references when the prior art and ordinary technical reasoning provide an articulated basis with a rational underpinning.
Accordingly, the rejection considers the amended independent claims as a whole and is not based on impermissible hindsight.
4. Dependent claims
Applicant generally asserts that the dependent claims are patentable because they depend from allegedly patentable independent claims. Applicant does not present a separate argument identifying any additional limitation of claims 2 through 8, 10 through 16, or 18 through 20 that is allegedly absent from the applied combination.
Because the arguments directed to independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are not persuasive, the general assertion regarding the dependent claims is likewise not persuasive. The additional limitations of the dependent claims remain rejected for the reasons and reference citations set forth in the rejection. A mere assertion that the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of dependency does not rebut the specific findings made for their additional limitations.
For example, Kowalchuk expressly discloses determining vibration magnitude, comparing the vibration magnitude to a predetermined or preset maximum vibration value, and initiating a controller routine when the measured magnitude exceeds that value. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0031] through [0033]. Kowalchuk also expressly identifies an accelerometer as a suitable vibration sensor. Kowalchuk, paragraphs [0023] and [0029]. These disclosures support the additional vibration magnitude, threshold comparison, amplitude, and accelerometer limitations recited in the corresponding dependent claims when applied to the Mansur and Hake shear release condition for the reasons discussed above.
The rejection of the dependent claims is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered. Applicant has not shown that any amended independent claim requires a feature absent from or nonobvious over the combined teachings of Mansur, Hake, Kowalchuk, and Kovach. Applicant has also not shown that the proposed combination lacks a reason to combine, lacks a reasonable expectation of success, teaches away from the claimed arrangement, or produces an unexpected result.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Applicant’s request for an interview is acknowledged. Applicant’s representative may contact the Examiner to arrange an interview to discuss the outstanding issues. The request for an interview, standing alone, does not overcome the rejection.
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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights