DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12-14, and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and appear to be directed solely to the instant amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the claims are addressed in the body of the rejections below.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
The claim ordering will be corrected upon allowance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: obstacle detection manager, obstacle identifier, and obstacle avoidance manager in claims 7, 13, and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertel et. al. (US 10,112,615), herein Hertel in view of Bender (US 2021/0122224), herein Bender.
Regarding claim 1:
Hertel teaches:
An agricultural vehicle (fig. 1a, traction vehicle 18) comprising:
a control system (fig. 1a, traction control system 10) configured to control slip of a tractive element (The traction control system includes a controller operable to react to wheel slip by automatically activating a plurality of reactions for reducing wheel slip, wherein the plurality of reactions are tiered such that the controller activates each reaction sequentially in a predetermined order [col 1, lines 32-37]), the control system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
obtain an indication of a priority operating parameter of a plurality of operating parameters of the agricultural vehicle (The reaction thresholds may be preprogrammed into the controller 14 or may be user selectable by way of the user interface 38 [col 7, lines 45-47]), wherein the priority operating parameter is an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]);
determine an order (the reaction thresholds are preprogrammed into the controller 14 and are tailored to a specific application, e.g., to the specific type of vehicle 18 and implement 62 and/or to prioritize fuel economy, implement productivity, etc. [col 7, lines 47-51]) indicating that a first operating parameter of the plurality of operating parameters other than the priority operating parameter is to be adjusted before a second operating parameter of the plurality of operating parameters other than the priority operating parameter (the reactions are pre-programmed into the controller 14 being assigned a predetermined order (also referred to herein as a hierarchy or tier or priority) [col 7, lines 3-5]);
responsive to a slip of the tractive element exceeding a threshold (The controller 14 activates the reactions in the predetermined order when respective wheel slip thresholds are crossed [col 7, lines 5-7]):
perform, according to the order, a first adjustment to the first operating parameter and a second adjustment the second operating parameter (the order is to be the order in which the controller 14 automatically activates the reactions in response to wheel slip when wheel slip is detected. The reactions are activated in sequence as wheel slip increases, rather than all at once, to maximize vehicle productivity [col 7, lines 12-17])
operate the agricultural vehicle according to the first adjustment and the second adjustment (The controller 14 continuously monitors wheel slip of one or more of the wheels 26 being powered by the transmission 70 (e.g., as a percentage or other unit, as described above). Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold [col 7, lines 21-26])
responsive to the slip of the tractive element exceeding the threshold while operating the agricultural vehicle according to the first adjustment and the second adjustment to perform an adjustment to the priority operating parameter (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction, or to eliminate the implement lift/lower reaction altogether (e.g., by the user not selecting the implement lift/lower reaction). Delaying or eliminating the implement lift/lower reaction allows the implement to maintain functionality and productivity (e.g., engagement with the ground 58) as long as possible [col 58-65])
operate the agricultural vehicle according to the adjustment to the priority operating parameter, the first adjustment, and the second adjustment (Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold (also referred to herein as a reaction threshold). The reactions are tiered from first to last by ordering the respective reaction thresholds from lowest to highest, i.e., lowest wheel slip trigger to highest wheel slip trigger. In this way, only one reaction is triggered at the lowest threshold, and subsequent reactions are triggered at increasingly higher thresholds as necessary. For example, a first reaction has a reaction threshold R1, a second reaction has a second reaction threshold R2, a third reaction has a third reaction threshold R3, and a fourth reaction has a fourth reaction threshold R4. [col 7, lines 25-37]).
Hertel does not explicitly teach, however Bender teaches:
wherein at least one of the first operating parameter or the second operating parameter is of a mechanical front-wheel drive assembly (the wheel axles 38a, 38b and suspension system 42 may incorporate a mechanical front wheel drive (MFWD) system 50 in a wheel hub. The MFWD system 50 may be selectively engaged (automatically or by operator selection) as dictated by conditions, such as difficult or steep terrain, to improve traction and braking. [0033]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel to include the teachings as taught by Bender with a reasonable expectation of success. Bender teaches the benefits of “Such a MFWD system provides the capability to selectively drive the front wheels in addition to rear wheels, which allows for engine braking, increased power, and improved traction [Bender, 0024]”.
Regarding claim 2:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
wherein obtaining the indication of the priority operating parameter comprises receiving a user input from an operator interface of the control system (The reaction thresholds may be preprogrammed into the controller 14 or may be user selectable by way of the user interface 38 [col 7, lines 45-47]), the priority operating parameter comprising one of an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]), a vehicle ground speed (engine speed modulation [col 9, lines 13-14]), an implement load (this limitation is being interpreted in the alternative.), and a vehicle load (this limitation is being interpreted in the alternative.).
Regarding claim 8:
Hertel teaches:
A control system to control slip of a tractive element of an agricultural vehicle comprising processing circuitry (fig. 1a, traction control system 10) configured to:
obtain an indication of a priority operating parameter of a plurality of operating parameters of the agricultural vehicle (The reaction thresholds may be preprogrammed into the controller 14 or may be user selectable by way of the user interface 38 [col 7, lines 45-47]), wherein the priority operating parameter is an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]);
determine an order (the reaction thresholds are preprogrammed into the controller 14 and are tailored to a specific application, e.g., to the specific type of vehicle 18 and implement 62 and/or to prioritize fuel economy, implement productivity, etc. [col 7, lines 47-51]) indicating that a first operating parameter of the plurality of operating parameters other than the priority operating parameter is to be adjusted before a second operating parameter of the plurality of operating parameters other than the priority operating parameter (the reactions are pre-programmed into the controller 14 being assigned a predetermined order (also referred to herein as a hierarchy or tier or priority) [col 7, lines 3-5]);
responsive to a slip of the tractive element exceeding a threshold (The controller 14 activates the reactions in the predetermined order when respective wheel slip thresholds are crossed [col 7, lines 5-7]):
perform, according to the order, a first adjustment to the first operating parameter and a second adjustment the second operating parameter (the order is to be the order in which the controller 14 automatically activates the reactions in response to wheel slip when wheel slip is detected. The reactions are activated in sequence as wheel slip increases, rather than all at once, to maximize vehicle productivity [col 7, lines 12-17])
operate the agricultural vehicle according to the first adjustment and the second adjustment (The controller 14 continuously monitors wheel slip of one or more of the wheels 26 being powered by the transmission 70 (e.g., as a percentage or other unit, as described above). Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold [col 7, lines 21-26])
responsive to the slip of the tractive element exceeding the threshold while operating the agricultural vehicle according to the first adjustment and the second adjustment to perform an adjustment to the priority operating parameter (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction, or to eliminate the implement lift/lower reaction altogether (e.g., by the user not selecting the implement lift/lower reaction). Delaying or eliminating the implement lift/lower reaction allows the implement to maintain functionality and productivity (e.g., engagement with the ground 58) as long as possible [col 58-65])
operate the agricultural vehicle according to the adjustment to the priority operating parameter, the first adjustment, and the second adjustment (Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold (also referred to herein as a reaction threshold). The reactions are tiered from first to last by ordering the respective reaction thresholds from lowest to highest, i.e., lowest wheel slip trigger to highest wheel slip trigger. In this way, only one reaction is triggered at the lowest threshold, and subsequent reactions are triggered at increasingly higher thresholds as necessary. For example, a first reaction has a reaction threshold R1, a second reaction has a second reaction threshold R2, a third reaction has a third reaction threshold R3, and a fourth reaction has a fourth reaction threshold R4. [col 7, lines 25-37]).
Hertel does not explicitly teach, however Bender teaches:
wherein at least one of the first operating parameter or the second operating parameter is of a mechanical front-wheel drive assembly (the wheel axles 38a, 38b and suspension system 42 may incorporate a mechanical front wheel drive (MFWD) system 50 in a wheel hub. The MFWD system 50 may be selectively engaged (automatically or by operator selection) as dictated by conditions, such as difficult or steep terrain, to improve traction and braking. [0033]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel to include the teachings as taught by Bender with a reasonable expectation of success. Bender teaches the benefits of “Such a MFWD system provides the capability to selectively drive the front wheels in addition to rear wheels, which allows for engine braking, increased power, and improved traction [Bender, 0024]”.
Regarding claim 9:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
wherein obtaining the indication of the priority operating parameter comprises receiving a user input from an operator interface of the control system (The reaction thresholds may be preprogrammed into the controller 14 or may be user selectable by way of the user interface 38 [col 7, lines 45-47]), the priority operating parameter comprising one of an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]), a vehicle ground speed (engine speed modulation [col 9, lines 13-14]), an implement load (this limitation is being interpreted in the alternative.), and a vehicle load (this limitation is being interpreted in the alternative.).
Regarding claim 14:
Hertel teaches:
A method to control slip of a tractive element of an agricultural vehicle (a method of automatic traction control for reduced wheel slip will improve the quality of the support surface left behind the vehicle, improve vehicle productivity, assist novice vehicle operators, and reduce the workload of experienced vehicle operators. [col 1, lines 22-26]) comprising the steps of:
obtaining an indication of a priority operating parameter of a plurality of operating parameters of the agricultural vehicle (The reaction thresholds may be preprogrammed into the controller 14 or may be user selectable by way of the user interface 38 [col 7, lines 45-47]), wherein the priority operating parameter is an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]);
determining an order (the reaction thresholds are preprogrammed into the controller 14 and are tailored to a specific application, e.g., to the specific type of vehicle 18 and implement 62 and/or to prioritize fuel economy, implement productivity, etc. [col 7, lines 47-51]) indicating that a first operating parameter of the plurality of operating parameters other than the priority operating parameter is to be adjusted before a second operating parameter of the plurality of operating parameters other than the priority operating parameter (the reactions are pre-programmed into the controller 14 being assigned a predetermined order (also referred to herein as a hierarchy or tier or priority) [col 7, lines 3-5]);
responsive to a slip of the tractive element exceeding a threshold (The controller 14 activates the reactions in the predetermined order when respective wheel slip thresholds are crossed [col 7, lines 5-7]):
performing, according to the order, a first adjustment to the first operating parameter and a second adjustment the second operating parameter (the order is to be the order in which the controller 14 automatically activates the reactions in response to wheel slip when wheel slip is detected. The reactions are activated in sequence as wheel slip increases, rather than all at once, to maximize vehicle productivity [col 7, lines 12-17])
operating the agricultural vehicle according to the first adjustment and the second adjustment (The controller 14 continuously monitors wheel slip of one or more of the wheels 26 being powered by the transmission 70 (e.g., as a percentage or other unit, as described above). Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold [col 7, lines 21-26])
responsive to the slip of the tractive element exceeding the threshold while operating the agricultural vehicle according to the first adjustment and the second adjustment
performing an adjustment to the priority operating parameter (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction, or to eliminate the implement lift/lower reaction altogether (e.g., by the user not selecting the implement lift/lower reaction). Delaying or eliminating the implement lift/lower reaction allows the implement to maintain functionality and productivity (e.g., engagement with the ground 58) as long as possible [col 58-65])
operating the agricultural vehicle according to the adjustment to the priority operating parameter, the first adjustment, and the second adjustment (Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold (also referred to herein as a reaction threshold). The reactions are tiered from first to last by ordering the respective reaction thresholds from lowest to highest, i.e., lowest wheel slip trigger to highest wheel slip trigger. In this way, only one reaction is triggered at the lowest threshold, and subsequent reactions are triggered at increasingly higher thresholds as necessary. For example, a first reaction has a reaction threshold R1, a second reaction has a second reaction threshold R2, a third reaction has a third reaction threshold R3, and a fourth reaction has a fourth reaction threshold R4. [col 7, lines 25-37]).
Hertel does not explicitly teach, however Bender teaches:
wherein at least one of the first operating parameter or the second operating parameter is of a mechanical front-wheel drive assembly (the wheel axles 38a, 38b and suspension system 42 may incorporate a mechanical front wheel drive (MFWD) system 50 in a wheel hub. The MFWD system 50 may be selectively engaged (automatically or by operator selection) as dictated by conditions, such as difficult or steep terrain, to improve traction and braking. [0033]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel to include the teachings as taught by Bender with a reasonable expectation of success. Bender teaches the benefits of “Such a MFWD system provides the capability to selectively drive the front wheels in addition to rear wheels, which allows for engine braking, increased power, and improved traction [Bender, 0024]”.
Regarding claim 15:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
wherein obtaining the indication of the priority operating parameter comprises receiving a user input from an operator interface of the control system (The reaction thresholds may be preprogrammed into the controller 14 or may be user selectable by way of the user interface 38 [col 7, lines 45-47]), the priority operating parameter comprising one of an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]), a vehicle ground speed (engine speed modulation [col 9, lines 13-14]), an implement load (this limitation is being interpreted in the alternative.), and a vehicle load (this limitation is being interpreted in the alternative.).
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertel et. al. (US 10,112,615), herein Hertel in view of Bender (US 2021/0122224), herein Bender in further view of Hrazdera (US 2005/0087378), herein Hrazdera (from IDS) and Kobayashi et. al. (US 2016/0031447), herein Kobayashi (from IDS).
Regarding claim 3:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]), an implement load (The implement lift/lower reaction decreases wheel slip by modulating vehicle load [col 5, lines 51-52]),
Hertel in view of Bender however Hrazdera teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include a steering angle (the signals from the steering [0034]), a braking force (operation of the brakes are monitored and evaluated [0034]), a differential lock position (the all-wheel and differential locks are switched on [0039]), an engine speed (changing engine speed [abstract]), a transmission gear setting (A gearbox switches off the load and the gear transmission ratio of the gearbox is variable in steps, by means of a control joined to the gearbox, according to the wheel slip or resistance to traction [0008]), , a vehicle ground speed (the actual travelling speed over land [0012]), and a vehicle load (the implement is lifted and the coupled load is reduced [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender to include the teachings as taught by Hrazdera with a reasonable expectation of success. Hrazdera teaches “he can select appropriate devices (actuators) for controlling the individual vehicle components in order of priority depending upon a minimized settable wheel slip, set and then control them automatically by means of the central electronic box (13) [Hrazdera, 0037]”.
Hertel in view of Bender and Hrazdera do not explicitly teach, however Kobayashi teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include a four-wheel drive engagement (turning on 4WD [0028]), a power take-off speed (turning off PTO (power take-off) [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender and Hrazdera to include the teachings as taught by Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success. Kobayashi teaches the benefit of “a driving support system that manages, in a user-friendly way, a sequence that is performed with respect to a traveling work vehicle during headland travel and the like [Kobayashi, 0008]”.
Regarding claim 10:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]), an implement load (The implement lift/lower reaction decreases wheel slip by modulating vehicle load [col 5, lines 51-52]),
Hertel in view of Bender however Hrazdera teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include a steering angle (the signals from the steering [0034]), a braking force (operation of the brakes are monitored and evaluated [0034]), a differential lock position (the all-wheel and differential locks are switched on [0039]), an engine speed (changing engine speed [abstract]), a transmission gear setting (A gearbox switches off the load and the gear transmission ratio of the gearbox is variable in steps, by means of a control joined to the gearbox, according to the wheel slip or resistance to traction [0008]), , a vehicle ground speed (the actual travelling speed over land [0012]), and a vehicle load (the implement is lifted and the coupled load is reduced [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender to include the teachings as taught by Hrazdera with a reasonable expectation of success. Hrazdera teaches “he can select appropriate devices (actuators) for controlling the individual vehicle components in order of priority depending upon a minimized settable wheel slip, set and then control them automatically by means of the central electronic box (13) [Hrazdera, 0037]”.
Hertel in view of Bender and Hrazdera do not explicitly teach, however Kobayashi teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include a four-wheel drive engagement (turning on 4WD [0028]), a power take-off speed (turning off PTO (power take-off) [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender and Hrazdera to include the teachings as taught by Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success. Kobayashi teaches the benefit of “a driving support system that manages, in a user-friendly way, a sequence that is performed with respect to a traveling work vehicle during headland travel and the like [Kobayashi, 0008]”.
Regarding claim 16:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include an implement depth (it may be desirable to assign the highest reaction threshold to the implement lift/lower reaction [col 7, lines 58-59]), an implement load (The implement lift/lower reaction decreases wheel slip by modulating vehicle load [col 5, lines 51-52]),
Hertel in view of Bender however Hrazdera teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include a steering angle (the signals from the steering [0034]), a braking force (operation of the brakes are monitored and evaluated [0034]), a differential lock position (the all-wheel and differential locks are switched on [0039]), an engine speed (changing engine speed [abstract]), a transmission gear setting (A gearbox switches off the load and the gear transmission ratio of the gearbox is variable in steps, by means of a control joined to the gearbox, according to the wheel slip or resistance to traction [0008]), , a vehicle ground speed (the actual travelling speed over land [0012]), and a vehicle load (the implement is lifted and the coupled load is reduced [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender to include the teachings as taught by Hrazdera with a reasonable expectation of success. Hrazdera teaches “he can select appropriate devices (actuators) for controlling the individual vehicle components in order of priority depending upon a minimized settable wheel slip, set and then control them automatically by means of the central electronic box (13) [Hrazdera, 0037]”.
Hertel in view of Bender and Hrazdera do not explicitly teach, however Kobayashi teaches:
wherein the plurality of operating parameters include a four-wheel drive engagement (turning on 4WD [0028]), a power take-off speed (turning off PTO (power take-off) [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender and Hrazdera to include the teachings as taught by Kobayashi with a reasonable expectation of success. Kobayashi teaches the benefit of “a driving support system that manages, in a user-friendly way, a sequence that is performed with respect to a traveling work vehicle during headland travel and the like [Kobayashi, 0008]”.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertel et. al. (US 10,112,615), herein Hertel in view of Bender (US 2021/0122224), herein Bender in further view of Robertson (US 11,991,948), herein Robertson.
Regarding claim 4:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel in view of Bender does not explicitly teach, however Robertson teaches:
the control system (each independent or group of actuators 210 or 220 can be controlled via any type of controller, micro-controller, integrated circuit (IC), or computing device, among others [col 8, lines 51-54]) further configured to:
obtain operating parameter data (historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database) [col 12, lines 33-55]);
obtain location data corresponding to the operating parameter data (global positioning system (GPS) information [col 12, lines 33-55]); and
record and collect the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data over a time period (to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings), operational or performance priorities (priority or weight of specific targeted goal), operational or performance sensitivity (time of reaction to deviations to performance parameters or goals), weather data, historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database), planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters), global positioning system (GPS) information, harvest data (yield maps from current and previous harvest at a particular GPS location), among others [col 12, lines 33-55]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender to include the teachings as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success. Robertson teaches the benefit of “planting wheels for a planter that can dynamically change their tooth pattern or outer configuration to an optimal style, shape, size, or configuration based on unique soil characteristics in real-time, thereby improving planting efficiency and throughput and further minimizing or eliminating any downtime [Robertson, col 2, lines 19-24]”. This would provide a more dynamic way to adjust the machine to reduce traction issues.
Regarding claim 5:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Robertson further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to use a neural network to perform the first adjustment to the first operating parameter or the second operating parameter (the controller is operated via an artificial intelligence system, a neural network, or a machine learning algorithm [claim 9]),
the neural network trained based on the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data collected over the time period by the agricultural vehicle (the AI system of the disclosure described herein can send commands to each planter 300 or the controller of each wheel 100 to adjust the configuration and style of each wheel (via its members 200) in light of additional inputted or received conditions, such as operational or performance parameters (input parameters by operator or AI system the combine is to operate within), operational or performance benchmarks (standards for operating or performance data to be compared to), operational or performance goals (performance goals input by the operator or AI system the combine is to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings) [col 12, lines 30-55]) or by a plurality of other agricultural vehicles (planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters) [col 12, lines 30-55]).
Regarding claim 6:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Robertson further teaches:
wherein the agricultural vehicle is one of a plurality of agricultural vehicles in a fleet (planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters) [col 12, lines 30-55]), wherein the plurality of agricultural vehicles have access to the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data recorded by the agricultural vehicle (the AI system of the disclosure described herein can send commands to each planter 300 or the controller of each wheel 100 to adjust the configuration and style of each wheel (via its members 200) in light of additional inputted or received conditions, such as operational or performance parameters (input parameters by operator or AI system the combine is to operate within), operational or performance benchmarks (standards for operating or performance data to be compared to), operational or performance goals (performance goals input by the operator or AI system the combine is to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings), operational or performance priorities (priority or weight of specific targeted goal), operational or performance sensitivity (time of reaction to deviations to performance parameters or goals), weather data, historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database), planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters), global positioning system (GPS) information, harvest data (yield maps from current and previous harvest at a particular GPS location), among others [col 12, lines 30-55]).
Regarding claim 11:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel in view of Bender does not explicitly teach, however Robertson teaches:
obtain operating parameter data (historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database) [col 12, lines 33-55]);
obtain location data corresponding to the operating parameter data (global positioning system (GPS) information [col 12, lines 33-55]); and
record the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data (to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings), operational or performance priorities (priority or weight of specific targeted goal), operational or performance sensitivity (time of reaction to deviations to performance parameters or goals), weather data, historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database), planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters), global positioning system (GPS) information, harvest data (yield maps from current and previous harvest at a particular GPS location), among others [col 12, lines 33-55]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender to include the teachings as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success. Robertson teaches the benefit of “planting wheels for a planter that can dynamically change their tooth pattern or outer configuration to an optimal style, shape, size, or configuration based on unique soil characteristics in real-time, thereby improving planting efficiency and throughput and further minimizing or eliminating any downtime [Robertson, col 2, lines 19-24]”. This would provide a more dynamic way to adjust the machine to reduce traction issues.
Regarding claim 12:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim is dependent.
Robertson further teaches:
further configured to employ machine learning to perform the adjustment to the first adjustment to the first non-priority operating parameter or the second non-priority operating parameter (the controller is operated via an artificial intelligence system, a neural network, or a machine learning algorithm [claim 9]) of the agricultural vehicle in accordance with the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data recorded by the agricultural vehicle (the AI system of the disclosure described herein can send commands to each planter 300 or the controller of each wheel 100 to adjust the configuration and style of each wheel (via its members 200) in light of additional inputted or received conditions, such as operational or performance parameters (input parameters by operator or AI system the combine is to operate within), operational or performance benchmarks (standards for operating or performance data to be compared to), operational or performance goals (performance goals input by the operator or AI system the combine is to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings) [col 12, lines 30-55]) or by a plurality of other agricultural vehicles (planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters) [col 12, lines 30-55]).
Regarding claim 17:
Hertel in view of Bender teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel in view of Bender does not explicitly teach, however Robertson teaches:
obtaining an operating parameter data (historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database) [col 12, lines 33-55]);
obtaining a corresponding location data in relation to the operating parameter data (global positioning system (GPS) information [col 12, lines 33-55]); and
recording the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data (to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings), operational or performance priorities (priority or weight of specific targeted goal), operational or performance sensitivity (time of reaction to deviations to performance parameters or goals), weather data, historical data (information from every sensor or metric the combine records, typically store in a database), planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters), global positioning system (GPS) information, harvest data (yield maps from current and previous harvest at a particular GPS location), among others [col 12, lines 33-55]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender to include the teachings as taught by Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success. Robertson teaches the benefit of “planting wheels for a planter that can dynamically change their tooth pattern or outer configuration to an optimal style, shape, size, or configuration based on unique soil characteristics in real-time, thereby improving planting efficiency and throughput and further minimizing or eliminating any downtime [Robertson, col 2, lines 19-24]”. This would provide a more dynamic way to adjust the machine to reduce traction issues.
Regarding claim 18:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 17, upon which this claim is dependent.
Robertson further teaches:
employing machine learning to perform the first adjustment to the first non-priority operating parameter from the plurality of operating parameters (the controller is operated via an artificial intelligence system, a neural network, or a machine learning algorithm [claim 9]) of the agricultural vehicle in accordance with the operating parameter data and the corresponding location data recorded by the agricultural vehicle (the AI system of the disclosure described herein can send commands to each planter 300 or the controller of each wheel 100 to adjust the configuration and style of each wheel (via its members 200) in light of additional inputted or received conditions, such as operational or performance parameters (input parameters by operator or AI system the combine is to operate within), operational or performance benchmarks (standards for operating or performance data to be compared to), operational or performance goals (performance goals input by the operator or AI system the combine is to optimize by changing various controllers or wheel 100 or member 200 settings) [col 12, lines 30-55]) or by a plurality of other agricultural vehicles (planter fleet information (information shared from network or other combine harvesters) [col 12, lines 30-55]).
Claim(s) 7, 13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertel et. al. (US 10,112,615), herein Hertel in view of Bender (US 2021/0122224), herein Bender in further view of Robertson (US 11,991,948), herein Robertson, Ekhe et. al. (US 2023/0389458), herein Ekhe, and Kale et. al. (US 2023/0135150), herein Kale.
Regarding claim 7:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 5, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson does not explicitly teach, however Ekhe teaches:
further comprising a vision system comprising at least one camera (at least one other detection system, such as, for example, one or more of the camera, radar, and/or lidar detection systems 610, 616, 624 [0074]) configured to produce an image data of an area proximate the agricultural vehicle (the obstacle detection system 1420 can be positioned on the work machine 100 to emit signals 1601, 1603 that can detect objects 1602, 1604, 1606 that are positioned at least in front of the work machine 100 [0174]), the control system further configured to provide to or use the image data (to detect the presence of an object above, on, or protruding from the surface of the ground [0074]) in at least one of:
an obstacle detection manager configured to identify a ground condition in a path of the agricultural vehicle in the image data (to detect the presence of an object above, on, or protruding from the surface of the ground [0074]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson to include the teachings as taught by Ekhe with a reasonable expectation of success. Ekhe identifies the problem of “the performance of ground engagement tools can be adversely impacted, and associated efficiency reduced, by the presence of objects that are on and/or at least partially beneath the surface of the ground on which engagement tool is being used. Moreover, occasionally during use of such ground engagement tools, the tools may be damaged by inadvertent contact with a relatively large and/or ridged object, such as, for example, a stone or rock, among other objects [Ekhe, 0002]” and teaches the benefit of “the controller 604 can provide instructions to the tool position and adjustment mechanism 636 that can result in the lifting of a shank assembly 132 to a height at which the assembly 132 will avoid contact with the detected object [Ekhe, 0219]”.
Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson and Ekhe do not explicitly teach, however Kale teaches:
an obstacle identifier configured to detect a slip condition in the path of the agricultural vehicle (The equipment location can be determined by an on-board locator and used to help determine a path using a path planning module. During operation, a slip determination module can identify wheel or transmission slip using sensor (e.g., or determined using indirect measurements as described above), and identify the location of slip using the locator. The information may be transmitted to a learning engine (e.g., either locally or remotely disposed), using a communications module. The learning engine can use the identified slip data, in combination with the site classification information, to more accurately predict an appropriate field condition path for the equipment. [0059]); and
an obstacle avoidance manager configured to employ machine learning (To predict the sink index of the vehicle at any point of the field 1000, the coefficient of friction for soil/ground at that point or area is determined with the machine learning model considering various parameters [0063]) to preemptively perform the adjustment to the at least one non-priority operating parameter from the plurality of operating parameters to avoid the slip condition (The various outputs are determined by the ANN model to predict sink and slippage index and the map can be generated for future passes for given field 1000. The model may also provide the required machine conditions to avoid sinking or slipping. The automatic navigation system of sugarcane harvester may process this information and make necessary changes in steering while the sinkable patches approach near the harvester. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson, and Ekhe to include the teachings as taught by Kale with a reasonable expectation of success. Kale identifies the problem of “Agricultural vehicles, such as tractors, combines, seeders, planters or sprayers are often massive in size and thus are susceptible to sinking and excessive compaction in certain field conditions. As these agricultural vehicles traverse a field during an agricultural operation, they may experience field conditions with relatively higher moisture content and/or loose soil—both of which exacerbate sinking and compaction of the agricultural vehicle. Without proper planning and precautions, such field conditions may cause the vehicle to get stuck or sink leading to damage to the field and the vehicle, including unnecessary downtime and loss of productivity [Kale, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 13:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson does not explicitly teach, however Ekhe teaches:
further comprising a vision system comprising at least one camera (at least one other detection system, such as, for example, one or more of the camera, radar, and/or lidar detection systems 610, 616, 624 [0074]) configured to produce an image data of an area proximate the agricultural vehicle (the obstacle detection system 1420 can be positioned on the work machine 100 to emit signals 1601, 1603 that can detect objects 1602, 1604, 1606 that are positioned at least in front of the work machine 100 [0174]), the control system further configured to provide to or use the image data (to detect the presence of an object above, on, or protruding from the surface of the ground [0074]) in at least one of:
an obstacle detection manager configured to identify a ground condition in a path of the agricultural vehicle in the image data (to detect the presence of an object above, on, or protruding from the surface of the ground [0074]);
perform the first adjustment to the first non-priority operating parameter from the plurality of operating parameters to avoid the slip condition (If operating in an automatic adjustment mode, then at block 1910 the controller 604 can communicate instructions to the tool position and adjustment mechanism 636 to adjust a position of one or more components of the implement 102. For example, the controller 604 can provide instructions to the tool position and adjustment mechanism 636 that can result in the lifting of a shank assembly 132 to a height at which the assembly 132 will avoid contact with the detected object [0219]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified I Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson to include the teachings as taught by Ekhe with a reasonable expectation of success. Ekhe identifies the problem of “the performance of ground engagement tools can be adversely impacted, and associated efficiency reduced, by the presence of objects that are on and/or at least partially beneath the surface of the ground on which engagement tool is being used. Moreover, occasionally during use of such ground engagement tools, the tools may be damaged by inadvertent contact with a relatively large and/or ridged object, such as, for example, a stone or rock, among other objects [Ekhe, 0002]” and teaches the benefit of “the controller 604 can provide instructions to the tool position and adjustment mechanism 636 that can result in the lifting of a shank assembly 132 to a height at which the assembly 132 will avoid contact with the detected object [Ekhe, 0219]”.
Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson, and Ekhe do not explicitly teach, however Kale teaches:
an obstacle identifier configured to detect a slip condition in the path of the agricultural vehicle (The equipment location can be determined by an on-board locator and used to help determine a path using a path planning module. During operation, a slip determination module can identify wheel or transmission slip using sensor (e.g., or determined using indirect measurements as described above), and identify the location of slip using the locator. The information may be transmitted to a learning engine (e.g., either locally or remotely disposed), using a communications module. The learning engine can use the identified slip data, in combination with the site classification information, to more accurately predict an appropriate field condition path for the equipment. [0059]); and
an obstacle avoidance manager configured to employ machine learning (To predict the sink index of the vehicle at any point of the field 1000, the coefficient of friction for soil/ground at that point or area is determined with the machine learning model considering various parameters [0063]) to preemptively perform the adjustment to the first non-priority operating parameter from the plurality of operating parameters to avoid the slip condition (The various outputs are determined by the ANN model to predict sink and slippage index and the map can be generated for future passes for given field 1000. The model may also provide the required machine conditions to avoid sinking or slipping. The automatic navigation system of sugarcane harvester may process this information and make necessary changes in steering while the sinkable patches approach near the harvester. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson, and Ekhe to include the teachings as taught by Kale with a reasonable expectation of success. Kale identifies the problem of “Agricultural vehicles, such as tractors, combines, seeders, planters or sprayers are often massive in size and thus are susceptible to sinking and excessive compaction in certain field conditions. As these agricultural vehicles traverse a field during an agricultural operation, they may experience field conditions with relatively higher moisture content and/or loose soil—both of which exacerbate sinking and compaction of the agricultural vehicle. Without proper planning and precautions, such field conditions may cause the vehicle to get stuck or sink leading to damage to the field and the vehicle, including unnecessary downtime and loss of productivity [Kale, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 19:
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson teaches all the limitations of claim 18, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson does not explicitly teach, however Ekhe teaches:
further comprising a vision system comprising at least one camera (at least one other detection system, such as, for example, one or more of the camera, radar, and/or lidar detection systems 610, 616, 624 [0074]) configured to produce an image data of an area proximate the agricultural vehicle (the obstacle detection system 1420 can be positioned on the work machine 100 to emit signals 1601, 1603 that can detect objects 1602, 1604, 1606 that are positioned at least in front of the work machine 100 [0174]), the control system further configured to provide to or use the image data (to detect the presence of an object above, on, or protruding from the surface of the ground [0074]) in at least one of:
an obstacle detection manager configured to identify a ground condition in a path of the agricultural vehicle in the image data (to detect the presence of an object above, on, or protruding from the surface of the ground [0074]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender and Robertson to include the teachings as taught by Ekhe with a reasonable expectation of success. Ekhe identifies the problem of “the performance of ground engagement tools can be adversely impacted, and associated efficiency reduced, by the presence of objects that are on and/or at least partially beneath the surface of the ground on which engagement tool is being used. Moreover, occasionally during use of such ground engagement tools, the tools may be damaged by inadvertent contact with a relatively large and/or ridged object, such as, for example, a stone or rock, among other objects [Ekhe, 0002]” and teaches the benefit of “the controller 604 can provide instructions to the tool position and adjustment mechanism 636 that can result in the lifting of a shank assembly 132 to a height at which the assembly 132 will avoid contact with the detected object [Ekhe, 0219]”.
Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson, and Ekhe do not explicitly teach, however Kale teaches:
an obstacle identifier configured to detect a slip condition in the path of the agricultural vehicle (The equipment location can be determined by an on-board locator and used to help determine a path using a path planning module. During operation, a slip determination module can identify wheel or transmission slip using sensor (e.g., or determined using indirect measurements as described above), and identify the location of slip using the locator. The information may be transmitted to a learning engine (e.g., either locally or remotely disposed), using a communications module. The learning engine can use the identified slip data, in combination with the site classification information, to more accurately predict an appropriate field condition path for the equipment. [0059]); and
an obstacle avoidance manager configured to employ machine learning (To predict the sink index of the vehicle at any point of the field 1000, the coefficient of friction for soil/ground at that point or area is determined with the machine learning model considering various parameters [0063]) to preemptively perform the first adjustment to the first non-priority operating parameter from the plurality of operating parameters to avoid the slip condition (The various outputs are determined by the ANN model to predict sink and slippage index and the map can be generated for future passes for given field 1000. The model may also provide the required machine conditions to avoid sinking or slipping. The automatic navigation system of sugarcane harvester may process this information and make necessary changes in steering while the sinkable patches approach near the harvester. [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson, and Ekhe to include the teachings as taught by Kale with a reasonable expectation of success. Kale identifies the problem of “Agricultural vehicles, such as tractors, combines, seeders, planters or sprayers are often massive in size and thus are susceptible to sinking and excessive compaction in certain field conditions. As these agricultural vehicles traverse a field during an agricultural operation, they may experience field conditions with relatively higher moisture content and/or loose soil—both of which exacerbate sinking and compaction of the agricultural vehicle. Without proper planning and precautions, such field conditions may cause the vehicle to get stuck or sink leading to damage to the field and the vehicle, including unnecessary downtime and loss of productivity [Kale, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 20:
Hertel in view of Bender, Robertson, Ekhe, and Kale teaches all the limitations of claim 19, upon which this claim is dependent.
Hertel further teaches:
performing the first adjustment to the first non-priority operating parameter from the plurality of operating parameters to avoid the slip condition (Each reaction is activated by the controller when the measured wheel slip reaches a respective wheel slip threshold (also referred to herein as a reaction threshold). The reactions are tiered from first to last by ordering the respective reaction thresholds from lowest to highest, i.e., lowest wheel slip trigger to highest wheel slip trigger. In this way, only one reaction is triggered at the lowest threshold [col 7, lines 25-31])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sporrer (US 2018/0153088) discloses An agricultural implement includes a transversely extending frame forming a first, a second, and a third frame section. A first actuator is coupled to the first frame section, a second actuator coupled to the second frame section, and a third actuator coupled to the third frame section. Sensors are coupled to each frame section to detect a height of the respective frame section relative to an underlying surface. A control unit is disposed in electrical communication with the sensors and operably controls the actuators to adjust the height of each frame section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665