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 .
This final action is in response to Applicant’s filing dated February 23, 2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are currently pending and have been considered, as provided in more detail below. Claims 2, 5 and 11 have been cancelled.
*Examiner Note: Claim language is bolded. Cited References and Applicant’s arguments are italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection discussed above. While the new grounds of rejection may rely on some of the previous references applied in the prior rejection of record, new references have been introduced for Applicant’s consideration given the amended independent claim 1, 10 and 15.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection. The rejections under 35 USC §101 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, the amendments made to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejections as outlined below.
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, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2021/0045278 A1) in view of Ridley (US 2010/0142759 A1) and further in view of Raveendranatha (US 2015/0184536 A1).
Regarding amended claim 1, Henry discloses A control system (Fig. 4, 100 and see at least
para. [0035] of Henry which discloses “a system 100 for monitoring and/or controlling the operation of a tool assembly and/or ganged tool assembly of a tillage implement is illustrated in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter. More particularly, the system 100 may further generally detect the operational status of a tillage implement, such as one or more ground engaging tools of a tillage implement”) for an agricultural implement (see at least para. [0048] of Henry which discloses “the agricultural implement 10. Further, the controller 128 may be configured to transmit control signals to reverse the direction of movement of the agricultural implement 10 to reposition the agricultural implement 10”), the control system comprising: a sensor (Fig. 4, 60 and see at least para. [0030] of Henry which discloses “one or more force sensors 60 configured to detect a load acting one or more components”) configured to generate sensor data (Fig. 4, 136 and see at least para. [0043] of Henry which discloses “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine instantaneous load values for the disc blades 46 and/or average load values for the disc blades 46 over time”) for a disc blade (Fig. 1, 46 and see at least para. [0024] of Henry which discloses “a plurality of disc blades 46 supported by the toolbar 48 relative to the implement frame 28”); and a controller (Fig. 4, 128 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “a controller 128 configured to electronically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10”) communicatively coupled to the sensor (see at least para. [0040] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be communicatively coupled to the force sensor(s) 60 associated with the disc blades 46 of one or more ganged disc assemblies 44 via a wired or wireless connection to allow operational parameter data (e.g., as indicated by dashed lines 136 in FIG. 4) to be transmitted from the force sensor(s) 60 to the controller 128”) and comprising a memory (Fig. 4, 132 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “the memory device(s) 132 of the controller 128 may generally comprise memory element(s) including, but not limited to, a computer readable medium (e.g., random access memory (RAM)), a computer readable non-volatile medium (e.g., a flash memory), a floppy disk, a compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM), a magneto-optical disk (MOD), a digital versatile disc (DVD) and/or other suitable memory elements. Such memory device(s) 132 may generally be configured to store suitable computer-readable instructions”) and a processor (Fig. 4, 130 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “processor(s) 130 and associated memory device(s) 132 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions. As used herein, the term “processor” refers not only to integrated circuits referred to in the art as being included in a computer, but also refers to a controller, a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit, and other programmable circuits”), wherein the controller is configured to: receive the sensor data (see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “the controller may 128 be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the disc blades 46 and/or ganged disc assembly 44 and compare the monitored sensor data 136 to monitored sensor data 136 received from sensor(s) 60 associated with second disc blades (e.g., disc blades 46 of a separate ganged disc assembly 44”, *Examiner interprets the controller 128 receives sensor data 136) from the sensor; wherein the status comprises operational or not operational (see at least para. [0017] of Henry which discloses “methods for detecting the operational status of a ground engaging tool of a tillage implement … a controller of the disclosed system may be configured to receive data indicative of a draft load applied to one or more ground engaging tools of the implement, such as to disc blades supported by a ganged disc assembly. The draft load applied to the ground engaging tool(s) may, in turn, be indicative of the operational status of the ground engaging tool(s). For instance, the controller may be configured to monitor the data received from one or more force sensors associated with the ground engaging tool(s) and/or a ganged tool assembly associated with such ground engaging tools and compare a monitored value to a predetermined threshold value set for the ground engaging tool(s). For example, the ground engaging tool(s) may be one or more disc blades attached to a hanger of a ganged disc assembly. In such a circumstance, the sensor may be coupled to the hanger of the ganged disc assembly to communicate data indicative of the draft load on the disc blade(s)”, *Examiner interprets this data may be used to determine if blades are engaged or not, i.e., operational status. Additionally, see at least para. [0054] of Henry which discloses “the tillage implement 10 is being moved between an operational position and a raised position, and/or adjust a downforce being applied to the disc blade(s) 46”, *Examiner interprets the operational position to be operational status and the raised position to be not operational status).
Henry may not explicitly disclose the controller will determine a trace based on the sensor
data; compare the trace to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked; determine a status of the disc blade based on the comparison, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked; and output a first control signal to stop operation of the agricultural implement in response to determining the status is not operational, output a second control signal to initiate operation of the agricultural implement or continue operation of the agricultural implement in response to determining the status is operational, or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ridley discloses a component to determine a trace
based on the sensor data (see at least para. [0017] of Ridley which discloses “a camera, for capturing images of a bucket tooth line against a background which moves relative to the bucket over time; and (b) a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more teeth on the bucket is damaged or missing”, *Ridely discloses a camera for capturing images of a bucket tooth line and a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more teeth are damaged or missing (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley). The captured images constitute sensor data, and the processor analyzes that data to derive a representation (trace) of the tooth line configuration. This teaches determining a trace based on the sensor data, as claimed); compare the trace to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “The bucket tooth line of the bucket is analyzed on each upswing of the mining shovel and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line. When a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the shovel operator by a sensible output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor”, *since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., a missing or broken component as taught in Ridley which is interpreted to be a missing or broken disc blade, as broadly as recited. However, Ridley further teaches that “The bucket tooth line … is analyzed … and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line” (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley). This base-case scenario is the target trace (reference representation of an undamaged component), and the comparison identifies whether a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing. Since claim 1 recites “missing, broken or cracked” in the alternative, Ridely’s teaching of missing or broken teeth satisfies this limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a partially broken tooth includes a cracked tooth, a crack is an incomplete fracture. Ridley discloses acquiring data representative of a machine component using image sensors (i.e., cameras) and processing the captured images to determine a configuration of the component. The captured images constitute sensor data. Ridely further discloses analyzing the configuration of the component (i.e., a bucket tooth line) and comparing it to a baseline configurate to detect missing or broken components, as described in para. [0082] of Ridley); determine a status (see at least para. [0083] of Ridley which discloses “shovel operators are alerted to partial or complete tooth breakage as soon as the shovel comes into the viewing range of the camera” and see at least para. [0084] of Ridley which discloses “constant monitoring of the bucket tooth line status”) of the disc blade based on the comparison (see at least para. [0024] of Ridley which discloses “comparing the machine from the displacement image with a model machine; and (e) identifying a damaged or missing machine part from the comparison of the machine from the displacement image and the model machine” and see at least para. [0032] of Ridley which discloses “comparing the bucket tooth line from the displacement image with a model bucket tooth line; and (e) identifying a damaged or missing tooth from the comparison of the bucket tooth line from the displacement image and the model bucket tooth line”), and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked (see at least para. [0146] of Ridley which discloses “During operation of the system (20) the image stays full until a missing tooth incident occurs. When a missing tooth incident is detected, the screen of the monitor (24) changes automatically to the image shown in FIG. 11”); and output a first control signal to stop operation of the agricultural implement in response to determining the status is not operational (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley which discloses “the sensible output may be comprised of a signal which causes the mining shovel to stop operating when a damaged or missing tooth is detected”, *Ridely teaches that when a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the operator (para. [0082]-[0083]) and can output a signal which causes the mining shovel to stop operating (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley). This shows that Ridley treats missing or broken teeth as conditions that warrant stopping operation, i.e., they correspond to a non-operational status. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would apply the same logic toto disc blades: a disc blade that is missing , broken or cracked is not operational and should trigger a stop signal, *Examiner notes that since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e.,output of a first control signal to stop operation of the agricultural implement in response to determining the status is not operational).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
the control system of Henry to determine a trace based on the sensor data; compare the trace to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked; determine a status of the disc blade based on the comparison, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked; and output a first control signal to stop operation of the agricultural implement in response to determining the status is not operational; as taught in Ridley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve detection of damaged disc blades and automatically halt implement operation when a disc blade is missing, broken or cracked, thereby reducing uneven tillage and preventing further damage. See para. [0084] of Ridley for motivation.
As discussed above, Ridely does disclose identifying whether the disc blade is missing or broken, or
(see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “a tooth is partially or completely broken”, Ridley further teaches that “The bucket tooth line … is analyzed … and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line” (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley). This base-case scenario is the target trace (reference representation of an undamaged component), and the comparison identifies whether a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a partially broken tooth could include a cracked tooth.
Henry, as modified by Ridely, may not explicitly disclose a cracked tooth or disc blade. Since
the limitation is cited in the alternative, the limitation of cracked is not required.
However, Raveendranatha discloses the disc blade is .. cracked (see at least para. [0031] of
Raveendranatha which discloses “the system 10 to determine existence of cracks or probability of existence of cracks in the blades” and see at least para. [0038] of Raveendranatha which discloses “the processing subsystem 22 … to determine the existence of a crack in the blade 12 or a probability of existence of a crack in the blade 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley to include identifying whether the disc blade is cracked as taught in Raveendranatha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more comprehensive blade-condition monitoring, improve detection of structural blade failures and automatically stop operation of the agricultural implement when a disc blade is detected to be missing, broken or cracked, thereby reducing uneven tillage and preventing further damage to the implement. See para. [0030] of Raveendranatha for motivation.
Regarding claim 3, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses, wherein the
controller is configured to output (see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “output channels”) an indication of a location of the disc blade (see at least para. [0048] of Henry which discloses “to transmit control signals 146 to the actuator 104 instructing the actuator 104 to raise the ganged disc assembly 44, and thus the disc blades 46, from the operational position to the raised position”, *Examiner interprets the transmitting of the control signals to correspond to outputting an indication of the location of the disc blade).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Henry and Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses
wherein the controller (Fig. 4, 128 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “a controller 128 configured to electronically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10”) is configured to compare of the trace to the target trace by: determining a difference between the trace and the target trace (see at least para. [0042] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be configured to … compare one or more monitored values (e.g., draft load associated with the ganged disc assembly 44 and/or disc blades 46) to a predetermined threshold value(s)” and see at least para. [0052] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be configured to monitor a range of loads acting on the disc blade(s) 46 over time based on data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 and compare such monitored range of loads to a predetermined range of loads threshold value”).
Ridley further discloses and determining the difference is greater than a threshold (see at
least para. [0148] of Ridley which discloses “calculate the number of “tooth” pixels from the model bucket tooth line (54) of FIG. 11 which overlay “foreground” (i.e., the actual bucket tooth line (52)) pixels from the displacement image of FIG. 6. This calculation is performed for each tooth in the bucket tooth line model (54); 8. a suitable criterion is established for the minimum number of common pixels which must occur with respect to a tooth (50) to indicate the tooth (50) being present, missing or damaged. For example, no indication may represent a first threshold number of common pixels, a “yellow” indication may indicate a second threshold number of common pixels, and a “red” indication may indicate a third threshold number of common pixels, where the first threshold number is greater than the second threshold number and the second threshold number is greater than the third threshold number”). Ridley teaches determining a difference between a measured component representation and a reference representation by calculating the number of common pixels between th4e actual bucket tooth line and the model bucket tooth line and determining whether that difference satisfies a threshold criterion. Ridely further teaches that a suitable criterion is established for the minimum number of common pixels required to indicate the tooth being present, missing or damaged with different threshold levels corresponding to no indication, yellow and red.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley, to include determining the difference is greater than a threshold, as further taught by Ridley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reliably distinguish between normal operational variations and conditions indicative of a missing or damaged component and thereby improve the accuracy and reliability of detecting non-operational disc blades.
Regarding claim 6, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses comprising a
second disc blade (see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “second disc blades (e.g., disc blades 46”), wherein the sensor is configured to generate second sensor data indicative of the second disc blade (see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “compare the monitored sensor data 136 to monitored sensor data 136 received from sensor(s) 60 associated with second disc blades (e.g., disc blades 46 of a separate ganged disc assembly 44). In such instance, the controller 128 may be configured to identify the disc blades 46 as plugged when a monitored value indicative of the draft load acting on the disc blades 46 differs from a second monitored value indicative of draft load acting on the second disc blades of the separate ganged disc assembly by a given threshold” and see at least claim 8 of Henry which discloses “data received from a second sensor coupled to a second tool assembly, the second sensor configured to capture data indicative of the load acting on at least one ground engaging tool of the second tool assembly”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha
discloses wherein the controller (Fig. 4, 128 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “a controller 128 configured to electronically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10”) is configured to: determine a second trace (see at least para. [0148] of Ridley which discloses “a set of captured images improves the chance of finding a suitable pair of images if the background or foreground are moving slowly relative to each other. Increasing the image capture rate increases the chance of finding a suitable pair of images”) based on the second sensor data; compare the second trace to the target trace (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “The bucket tooth line of the bucket is analyzed on each upswing of the mining shovel and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line. When a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the shovel operator by a sensible output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor”); and determine a status of the second disc blade (see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “second disc blades (e.g., disc blades 46”, *Henry discloses monitoring operational data associated with multiple disc blades and/or multiple disc assemblies because at least para. [0045] of Henry discloses comparison of monitored sensor data received from sensors associated with separate disc blades and separate gangs of disc assemblies) based on the comparison (Ridley further discloses generating and comparing component representations to reference representations in order to determine whether a component is present, damaged or missing (see at least para. [0082] and [0148] of Ridley).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha by applying the same comparison-based status determination techniques to additional disc blades monitored by the system of Henry in order to monitor the operational status of multiple disc blades within the agricultural implement.
Regarding claim 8, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses wherein the
sensor (Fig. 4, 60 and see at least para. [0030] of Henry which discloses “one or more force sensors 60 configured to detect a load acting one or more components”) is directed to an outer edge (Fig. 3 illustrates sensor 60 directed to the outer edge of the 4th disc blade 46 and see at least para. [0031] of Harvey which discloses “the force sensor(s) 60 may, in one embodiment, be mounted directly to component(s) of the disc gang assembly 44. For instance, in the illustrated embodiment, the force sensor(s) 60 is mounted directly to one or more disc blades 46 of the disc gang assembly 44 in order to detect the load acting on the disc gang assembly 44 as the disc blades 46 are being pulled through the ground”) of the disc blade, and wherein the sensor data comprises measurements over a plurality of rotations of the disc blade (see at least para. [0041] of Raveendranatha which discloses “the first window of signals is a rotor speed band of 25 rotations per minute, and a width of the first window of signals is 25 rotations per minute. Again in the embodiment of FIG. 2, the second window of signals is a rotor speed band of 50 rotations per minute, and a width of the second window of signals is 50 rotations per minute”, *Raveendranatha discloses monitoring rotating blades using sensor-derived measurements during blade operation to determine blade condition. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that monitoring a rotating blade of crack detection necessarily involves obtaining measurements over multiple rotations of the blade in order to reliably evaluate blade condition).
Regarding claim 9, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses wherein the
controller (Fig. 4, 128 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “a controller 128 configured to electronically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10”) is configured to output a third control signal (see at least para. [0047] of Henry which discloses “feedback signals (e.g., indicated by dashed line 138 in FIG. 4) to be transmitted from the controller 128”) to notify an operator of the status in response to determining the status is not operational (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “When a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the shovel operator by a sensible output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor”, *Ridley discloses that when a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the operator by a signal output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor (see at least para. [0082]). The automatic alert corresponds to outputting control signals to notify an operator in response to determining that the component is not operational).
Regarding amended claim 10, Henry discloses A method for determining a status (see at
least para. [0017] of Henry which discloses “the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for detecting the operational status of a ground engaging tool of a tillage implement”) of a disc blade (Fig. 1, 46 and see at least para. [0024] of Henry which discloses “a plurality of disc blades 46 supported by the toolbar 48 relative to the implement frame 28”) of a tillage implement (Fig. 1, 10 and see at least para. [0020] of Henry which discloses “the implement 10 may be configured as a tillage implement”), the method comprising: receiving, via a processor (Fig. 4, 130 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “processor(s) 130 and associated memory device(s) 132 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions. As used herein, the term “processor” refers not only to integrated circuits referred to in the art as being included in a computer, but also refers to a controller, a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit, and other programmable circuits”), a sensor signal (see at least para. [0047] of Harvey which discloses “the feedback signals 138 may instruct the user interface 102 to provide a notification to the operator of the implement 10 (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator) that provides an indication that one or more of the disc blades 46 are plugged”, *Examiner interprets this feedback signal to be a sensor signal indicative to the disc blades) indicative of the disc blade (see at least para. [0042] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the sensor(s) 60 and compare one or more monitored values (e.g., draft load associated with the ganged disc assembly 44 and/or disc blades 46) to a predetermined threshold value(s) set for the disc blades 46”) from a sensor (Fig. 4, 60 and see at least para. [0030] of Henry which discloses “one or more force sensors 60 configured to detect a load acting one or more components”); wherein the status comprises operational or not operational (see at least para. [0017] of Henry which discloses “methods for detecting the operational status of a ground engaging tool of a tillage implement … a controller of the disclosed system may be configured to receive data indicative of a draft load applied to one or more ground engaging tools of the implement, such as to disc blades supported by a ganged disc assembly. The draft load applied to the ground engaging tool(s) may, in turn, be indicative of the operational status of the ground engaging tool(s). For instance, the controller may be configured to monitor the data received from one or more force sensors associated with the ground engaging tool(s) and/or a ganged tool assembly associated with such ground engaging tools and compare a monitored value to a predetermined threshold value set for the ground engaging tool(s). For example, the ground engaging tool(s) may be one or more disc blades attached to a hanger of a ganged disc assembly. In such a circumstance, the sensor may be coupled to the hanger of the ganged disc assembly to communicate data indicative of the draft load on the disc blade(s)”, *Examiner interprets this data may be used to determine if blades are engaged or not, i.e., operational status. Additionally, see at least para. [0054] of Henry which discloses “the tillage implement 10 is being moved between an operational position and a raised position, and/or adjust a downforce being applied to the disc blade(s) 46”, *Examiner interprets the operational position to be operational status and the raised position to be not operational status).
Henry may not explicitly disclose determining, via the processor, a trace based on the
sensor signal; comparing, via the processor, the trace to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked; determining, via the processor, a status of the disc blade based on the comparison, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked; and outputting, via the processor, a first control signal indicative of stopping operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status is not operational, outputting, via the processor, a second control signal indicative of initiating operation of the tillage implement or continuing operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status is operational, or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ridley discloses determining, via the processor (see
at least para. [0013] of Ridley which discloses “a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more machine parts is damaged or missing”), a trace based on the sensor signal (see at least para. [0023] of Ridley which discloses “A communication link is provided between the image capturing device and the processor so that the captured images may be provided to the processor for processing” Also, see at least para. [0017] of Ridley which discloses “a camera, for capturing images of a bucket tooth line against a background which moves relative to the bucket over time; and (b) a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more teeth on the bucket is damaged or missing”, *Ridely discloses a camera for capturing images of a bucket tooth line and a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more teeth are damaged or missing (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley). The captured images constitute sensor data, and the processor analyzes that data to derive a representation (trace) of the tooth line configuration. This teaches determining a trace based on the sensor data, as claimed); comparing, via the processor, the trace to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “The bucket tooth line of the bucket is analyzed on each upswing of the mining shovel and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line. When a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the shovel operator by a sensible output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor”, *since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., a missing or broken component as taught in Ridley which is interpreted to be a missing or broken disc blade, as broadly as recited. However, Ridley further teaches that “The bucket tooth line … is analyzed … and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line” (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley). This base-case scenario is the target trace (reference representation of an undamaged component), and the comparison identifies whether a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing. Since claim 1 recites “missing, broken or cracked” in the alternative, Ridely’s teaching of missing or broken teeth satisfies this limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a partially broken tooth includes a cracked tooth, a crack is an incomplete fracture. Ridley discloses acquiring data representative of a machine component using image sensors (i.e., cameras) and processing the captured images to determine a configuration of the component. The captured images constitute sensor data. Ridely further discloses analyzing the configuration of the component (i.e., a bucket tooth line) and comparing it to a baseline configurate to detect missing or broken components, as described in para. [0082] of Ridley); determining, via the processor, a status (see at least para. [0083] of Ridley which discloses “shovel operators are alerted to partial or complete tooth breakage as soon as the shovel comes into the viewing range of the camera” and see at least para. [0084] of Ridley which discloses “constant monitoring of the bucket tooth line status”) of the disc blade based on the comparison (see at least para. [0024] of Ridley which discloses “comparing the machine from the displacement image with a model machine; and (e) identifying a damaged or missing machine part from the comparison of the machine from the displacement image and the model machine” and see at least para. [0032] of Ridley which discloses “comparing the bucket tooth line from the displacement image with a model bucket tooth line; and (e) identifying a damaged or missing tooth from the comparison of the bucket tooth line from the displacement image and the model bucket tooth line”), and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked (see at least para. [0146] of Ridley which discloses “During operation of the system (20) the image stays full until a missing tooth incident occurs. When a missing tooth incident is detected, the screen of the monitor (24) changes automatically to the image shown in FIG. 11”); and outputting, via the processor, a first control signal indicative of stopping operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status is not operational (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley which discloses “the sensible output may be comprised of a signal which causes the mining shovel to stop operating when a damaged or missing tooth is detected”, *Ridely teaches that when a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the operator (para. [0082]-[0083]) and can output a signal which causes the mining shovel to stop operating (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley). This shows that Ridley treats missing or broken teeth as conditions that warrant stopping operation, i.e., they correspond to a non-operational status. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would apply the same logic to disc blades: a disc blade that is missing , broken or cracked is not operational and should trigger a stop signal, *Examiner note that since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., output of a first control signal to stop operation of the agricultural implement in response to determining the status is not operational).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Henry to include determining, via the processor, a trace based on the sensor signal; comparing, via the processor, the trace to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked; determining, via the processor, a status of the disc blade based on the comparison, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked; and outputting, via the processor, a first control signal indicative of stopping operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status is not operational as taught in Ridley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve detection of damaged disc blades and automatically halt implement operation when a disc blade is missing, broken or cracked, thereby reducing uneven tillage and preventing further damage. See para. [0084] of Ridley for motivation.
As discussed above, Ridely does disclose identifying whether the disc blade is missing or
broken, or (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “a tooth is partially or completely broken”, Ridley further teaches that “The bucket tooth line … is analyzed … and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line” (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley). This base-case scenario is the target trace (reference representation of an undamaged component), and the comparison identifies whether a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a partially broken tooth could include a cracked tooth.
Henry, as modified by Ridely, may not explicitly disclose a cracked tooth or disc blade. Since
the limitation is cited in the alternative, the limitation of cracked is not required.
However, Raveendranatha discloses the disc blade is .. cracked (see at least para. [0031] of
Raveendranatha which discloses “the system 10 to determine existence of cracks or probability of existence of cracks in the blades” and see at least para. [0038] of Raveendranatha which discloses “the processing subsystem 22 … to determine the existence of a crack in the blade 12 or a probability of existence of a crack in the blade 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley to include identifying whether the disc blade is cracked as taught in Raveendranatha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more comprehensive blade-condition monitoring, improve detection of structural blade failures and automatically stop operation of the agricultural implement when a disc blade is detected to be missing, broken or cracked, thereby reducing uneven tillage and preventing further damage to the implement. See para. [0030] of Raveendranatha for motivation.
Regarding claim 12, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses comprising,
outputting, via the processor, a control signal indicative of lifting a wing section (Fig. 2, 34 & 36 and see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “the disc blades 46 may be positioned at or adjacent to the first side 34 of the implement 10 (see FIG. 1), and the second disc blades may be positioned at or adjacent to the second side 36 of the implement 10. As such, the loads acting on the ganged disc assemblies 44, disc blades 46, ganged tool assemblies, tool assemblies, and/or ground engaging tools at or adjacent to opposite sides 34, 36 of the implement 10 may be compared to determine if one or more of the ground engaging tools are plugged” and see at least para. [0054] of Henry which discloses “the tillage implement 10 is being moved between an operational position and a raised position, and/or adjust a downforce being applied to the disc blade(s) 46. Specifically, as described above, the controller 128 may be configured to transmit control signals 138 to the user interface 102 and/or transmit control signals 146 to the gang actuator(s) 104 to adjust one or more operating parameters of the disc blade(s) 46, such as the position of the disc blade(s) 46 and/or the downforce being applied thereto, based on the detection of plugging”, *Examiner interprets the blades are part of wing sections 34 and 36 and the signal is being output, as broadly as recited) with the disc blade in response to determining the status of the disc blade is not operational (see at least para. [0048] of Henry which discloses “the disc blades 46, from the operational position to the raised position and/or reduce the downforce being applied to the disc blades 46. Additionally, or alternatively, the controller 128 may be configured to transmit control signals to the work vehicle to stop forward motion of the agricultural implement 10”, *Examiner interprets this as evidence of the control signal stopping operation of the implement when it is determined that the status is not operational).
Regarding claim 13, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses comprising
outputting, via the processor, an indication comprising a location of the disc blade (see at least para. [0048] of Henry which discloses “to transmit control signals 146 to the actuator 104 instructing the actuator 104 to raise the ganged disc assembly 44, and thus the disc blades 46, from the operational position to the raised position” and the signal is being output as broadly as recited) in response to determining the status of the disc blade is not operational (see at least para. [0047] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be communicatively coupled to the user interface 102 via a wired or wireless connection to allow feedback signals (e.g., indicated by dashed line 138 in FIG. 4) to be transmitted from the controller 128 to the user interface 102. In such an embodiment, the feedback signals 138 may instruct the user interface 102 to provide a notification to the operator of the implement 10 (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator) that provides an indication that one or more of the disc blades 46 are plugged”).
Regarding claim 14, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses receiving,
via the processor (Fig. 4, 130 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “processor(s) 130 and associated memory device(s) 132 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions. As used herein, the term “processor” refers not only to integrated circuits referred to in the art as being included in a computer, but also refers to a controller, a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit, and other programmable circuits”), a second sensor (see at least claim 8 of Henry which discloses “data received from a second sensor coupled to a second tool assembly, the second sensor configured to capture data indicative of the load acting on at least one ground engaging tool of the second tool assembly”) signal indicative of a second disc blade from the sensor; determining, via the processor, a second trace (see at least para. [0148] of Ridley which discloses “a set of captured images improves the chance of finding a suitable pair of images if the background or foreground are moving slowly relative to each other. Increasing the image capture rate increases the chance of finding a suitable pair of images”) based on the second sensor signal; comparing, via the processor, the second trace to the target trace (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “The bucket tooth line of the bucket is analyzed on each upswing of the mining shovel and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line. When a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the shovel operator by a sensible output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor”); and determining, via the processor, the status of the second disc blade (see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “second disc blades (e.g., disc blades 46”, *Henry discloses monitoring operational data associated with multiple disc blades and/or multiple disc assemblies because at least para. [0045] of Henry discloses comparison of monitored sensor data received from sensors associated with separate disc blades and separate gangs of disc assemblies) based on the comparison (Ridley further discloses generating and comparing component representations to reference representations in order to determine whether a component is present, damaged or missing (see at least para. [0082] and [0148] of Ridley).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha by applying the same comparison-based status determination techniques to additional disc blades monitored by the system of Henry in order to monitor the operational status of multiple disc blades within the agricultural implement.
Regarding amended claim 15, Henry discloses A detection system (see at least a para.
[0006] of Henry which discloses “ a system for detecting the operational status of a ground engaging tool of a tillage implement“) for a tillage implement (Fig. 1, 10 and see at least para. [0020] of Henry which discloses “the implement 10 may be configured as a tillage implement”), comprising: a sensor (Fig. 4, 60 and see at least para. [0030] of Henry which discloses “one or more force sensors 60 configured to detect a load acting one or more components”) configured to direct a field of view (see at least para. [0033] of Henry which discloses “the force sensor(s) 60 may correspond to any suitable sensor (e.g., a load cell or pin) and may be configured to be positioned at any suitable location relative to ganged tool assembly 44 that allows the sensor(s) 60 to monitor the down force applied to the ganged tool assembly 44 (e.g., by positioning the sensor 60 at or adjacent to a rotational axis of the ganged tool assembly 44). It should be appreciated that the sensor 60 of FIG. 2 is illustrated at a rotational axis between the actuator 104 and the frame 48. However, the sensor 60 may additionally or alternatively be placed at a rotational axis between the actuator 104 and the ganged tool assembly 44 and/or to the actuator 104, such as to the rod 106, an exterior of the cylinder 108, or an interior of the cylinder 108”, *Examiner interprets this as directing a field of view due to the placement of the sensors) at a plurality of disc blades (Fig. 1, 46 and see at least para. [0024] of Henry which discloses “a plurality of disc blades 46 supported by the toolbar 48 relative to the implement frame 28”) of the tillage implement (Fig. 1, 10 and see at least para. [0020] of Henry which discloses “the implement 10 may be configured as a tillage implement”), wherein the field of view is configured to intersect the plurality of disc blades (Fig. 3 illustrates the field of view of sensor 60 and that line of sight will intersect across the disc blades 46 in a direction lateral to the machine); and a controller (Fig. 4, 128 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “a controller 128 configured to electronically control the operation of one or more components of the implement 10”) coupled to the sensor (see at least para. [0040] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be communicatively coupled to the force sensor(s) 60 associated with the disc blades 46 of one or more ganged disc assemblies 44 via a wired or wireless connection to allow operational parameter data (e.g., as indicated by dashed lines 136 in FIG. 4) to be transmitted from the force sensor(s) 60 to the controller 128”) and comprising a memory (Fig. 4, 132 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “the memory device(s) 132 of the controller 128 may generally comprise memory element(s) including, but not limited to, a computer readable medium (e.g., random access memory (RAM)), a computer readable non-volatile medium (e.g., a flash memory), a floppy disk, a compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM), a magneto-optical disk (MOD), a digital versatile disc (DVD) and/or other suitable memory elements. Such memory device(s) 132 may generally be configured to store suitable computer-readable instructions”) and a processor (Fig. 4, 130 and see at least para. [0037] of Henry which discloses “processor(s) 130 and associated memory device(s) 132 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions. As used herein, the term “processor” refers not only to integrated circuits referred to in the art as being included in a computer, but also refers to a controller, a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), an application specific integrated circuit, and other programmable circuits”), wherein the controller is configured to: receive sensor data (Fig. 4, 136 and see at least para. [0043] of Henry which discloses “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine instantaneous load values for the disc blades 46 and/or average load values for the disc blades 46 over time” and see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “the controller may 128 be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the disc blades 46 and/or ganged disc assembly 44 and compare the monitored sensor data 136 to monitored sensor data 136 received from sensor(s) 60 associated with second disc blades (e.g., disc blades 46 of a separate ganged disc assembly 44”, *Examiner interprets the controller 128 receives sensor data 136) from the sensor (see at least para. [0047] of Harvey which discloses “the feedback signals 138 may instruct the user interface 102 to provide a notification to the operator of the implement 10 (e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator) that provides an indication that one or more of the disc blades 46 are plugged”, *Examiner interprets this feedback signal to be a sensor signal indicative to the disc blades) indicative of the plurality of disc blades (see at least para. [0042] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be configured to monitor the sensor data 136 received from the sensor(s) 60 and compare one or more monitored values (e.g., draft load associated with the ganged disc assembly 44 and/or disc blades 46) to a predetermined threshold value(s) set for the disc blades 46”); wherein the status of the disc blade comprises operational or not operational (see at least para. [0017] of Henry which discloses “methods for detecting the operational status of a ground engaging tool of a tillage implement … a controller of the disclosed system may be configured to receive data indicative of a draft load applied to one or more ground engaging tools of the implement, such as to disc blades supported by a ganged disc assembly. The draft load applied to the ground engaging tool(s) may, in turn, be indicative of the operational status of the ground engaging tool(s). For instance, the controller may be configured to monitor the data received from one or more force sensors associated with the ground engaging tool(s) and/or a ganged tool assembly associated with such ground engaging tools and compare a monitored value to a predetermined threshold value set for the ground engaging tool(s). For example, the ground engaging tool(s) may be one or more disc blades attached to a hanger of a ganged disc assembly. In such a circumstance, the sensor may be coupled to the hanger of the ganged disc assembly to communicate data indicative of the draft load on the disc blade(s)”, *Examiner interprets this data may be used to determine if blades are engaged or not, i.e., operational status. Additionally, see at least para. [0054] of Henry which discloses “the tillage implement 10 is being moved between an operational position and a raised position, and/or adjust a downforce being applied to the disc blade(s) 46”, *Examiner interprets the operational position to be operational status and the raised position to be not operational status).
Henry may not explicitly disclose determine a trace for each of the plurality of disc blades
based on the sensor data; compare the trace for each disc blade of the plurality of disc blades to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked; determine a status of each disc blade of the plurality of disc blades based on the comparison for the disc blade, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked; and output a first control signal to stop operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status of a respective disc blade of the plurality of disc blades is not operational.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ridley discloses a component to determine a trace
for each of the plurality of disc blades based on the sensor data (see at least para. [0017] of Ridley which discloses “a camera, for capturing images of a bucket tooth line against a background which moves relative to the bucket over time; and (b) a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more teeth on the bucket is damaged or missing”, *Ridely discloses a camera for capturing images of a bucket tooth line and a processor for processing the captured images to determine whether one or more teeth are damaged or missing (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley). The captured images constitute sensor data, and the processor analyzes that data to derive a representation (trace) of the tooth line configuration. This teaches determining a trace based on the sensor data, as claimed); compare the trace for each disc blade of the plurality of disc blades to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “The bucket tooth line of the bucket is analyzed on each upswing of the mining shovel and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line. When a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the shovel operator by a sensible output in the form of a visual alarm on a touch screen monitor”, *since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., a missing or broken component as taught in Ridley which is interpreted to be a missing or broken disc blade, as broadly as recited. However, Ridley further teaches that “The bucket tooth line … is analyzed … and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line” (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley). This base-case scenario is the target trace (reference representation of an undamaged component), and the comparison identifies whether a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing. Since claim 1 recites “missing, broken or cracked” in the alternative, Ridely’s teaching of missing or broken teeth satisfies this limitation. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a partially broken tooth includes a cracked tooth, a crack is an incomplete fracture. Ridley discloses acquiring data representative of a machine component using image sensors (i.e., cameras) and processing the captured images to determine a configuration of the component. The captured images constitute sensor data. Ridely further discloses analyzing the configuration of the component (i.e., a bucket tooth line) and comparing it to a baseline configurate to detect missing or broken components, as described in para. [0082] of Ridley); determine a status (see at least para. [0083] of Ridley which discloses “shovel operators are alerted to partial or complete tooth breakage as soon as the shovel comes into the viewing range of the camera” and see at least para. [0084] of Ridley which discloses “constant monitoring of the bucket tooth line status”) of each disc blade of the plurality of disc blades based on the comparison (see at least para. [0024] of Ridley which discloses “comparing the machine from the displacement image with a model machine; and (e) identifying a damaged or missing machine part from the comparison of the machine from the displacement image and the model machine” and see at least para. [0032] of Ridley which discloses “comparing the bucket tooth line from the displacement image with a model bucket tooth line; and (e) identifying a damaged or missing tooth from the comparison of the bucket tooth line from the displacement image and the model bucket tooth line”) for the disc blade, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked (see at least para. [0146] of Ridley which discloses “During operation of the system (20) the image stays full until a missing tooth incident occurs. When a missing tooth incident is detected, the screen of the monitor (24) changes automatically to the image shown in FIG. 11”); and output a first control signal to stop operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status of a respective disc blade of the plurality of disc blades is not operational (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley which discloses “the sensible output may be comprised of a signal which causes the mining shovel to stop operating when a damaged or missing tooth is detected”, *Ridely teaches that when a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing, the system automatically alerts the operator (para. [0082]-[0083]) and can output a signal which causes the mining shovel to stop operating (see at least para. [0021] of Ridley). This shows that Ridley treats missing or broken teeth as conditions that warrant stopping operation, i.e., they correspond to a non-operational status. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would apply the same logic to disc blades: a disc blade that is missing , broken or cracked is not operational and should trigger a stop signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the control system of Henry to determine a trace for each of the plurality of disc blades based on the sensor data; compare the trace for each disc blade of the plurality of disc blades to a target trace to identify whether the disc blade is missing, broken, or cracked; determine a status of each disc blade of the plurality of disc blades based on the comparison for the disc blade, and not operational corresponds to the disc blade being missing, broken, or cracked; and output a first control signal to stop operation of the tillage implement in response to determining the status of a respective disc blade of the plurality of disc blades is not operational as taught in Ridley with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve detection of damaged disc blades and automatically halt implement operation when a disc blade is missing, broken or cracked, thereby reducing uneven tillage and preventing further damage. See para. [0084] of Ridley for motivation.
As discussed above, Ridely does disclose identifying whether the disc blade is missing or
broken, or (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley which discloses “a tooth is partially or completely broken”, Ridley further teaches that “The bucket tooth line … is analyzed … and compared against a base-case scenario of a fully intact tooth line” (see at least para. [0082] of Ridley). This base-case scenario is the target trace (reference representation of an undamaged component), and the comparison identifies whether a tooth is partially or completely broken or missing. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a partially broken tooth could include a cracked tooth.
Henry, as modified by Ridely, may not explicitly disclose a cracked tooth or disc blade. Since
the limitation is cited in the alternative, the limitation of cracked is not required.
However, Raveendranatha discloses the disc blade is .. cracked (see at least para. [0031] of
Raveendranatha which discloses “the system 10 to determine existence of cracks or probability of existence of cracks in the blades” and see at least para. [0038] of Raveendranatha which discloses “the processing subsystem 22 … to determine the existence of a crack in the blade 12 or a probability of existence of a crack in the blade 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley to include identifying whether the disc blade is cracked as taught in Raveendranatha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more comprehensive blade-condition monitoring, improve detection of structural blade failures and automatically stop operation of the agricultural implement when a disc blade is detected to be missing, broken or cracked, thereby reducing uneven tillage and preventing further damage to the implement. See para. [0030] of Raveendranatha for motivation.
Regarding claim 18, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses wherein
the controller is configured to output a control signal to raise a wing section (Fig. 2, 34 & 36 and see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “the disc blades 46 may be positioned at or adjacent to the first side 34 of the implement 10 (see FIG. 1), and the second disc blades may be positioned at or adjacent to the second side 36 of the implement 10. As such, the loads acting on the ganged disc assemblies 44, disc blades 46, ganged tool assemblies, tool assemblies, and/or ground engaging tools at or adjacent to opposite sides 34, 36 of the implement 10 may be compared to determine if one or more of the ground engaging tools are plugged” and see at least para. [0054] of Henry which discloses “the tillage implement 10 is being moved between an operational position and a raised position, and/or adjust a downforce being applied to the disc blade(s) 46. Specifically, as described above, the controller 128 may be configured to transmit control signals 138 to the user interface 102 and/or transmit control signals 146 to the gang actuator(s) 104 to adjust one or more operating parameters of the disc blade(s) 46, such as the position of the disc blade(s) 46 and/or the downforce being applied thereto, based on the detection of plugging”, *Examiner interprets the blades are part of wing sections 34 and 36) comprising a first disc blade (Fig. 3 illustrates the first disc blade 46 of the plurality of blades) of the plurality of disc blades in response to determining the operational status of a first disc blade of the plurality of disc blades is not operational (see at least para. [0048] of Henry which discloses “the disc blades 46, from the operational position to the raised position and/or reduce the downforce being applied to the disc blades 46. Additionally, or alternatively, the controller 128 may be configured to transmit control signals to the work vehicle to stop forward motion of the agricultural implement 10”, *Examiner interprets this as evidence of the control signal stopping operation of the implement when it is determined that the status is not operational).
Regarding claim 19, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses wherein the
sensor is configured to generate the sensor data over a period of time (see at least para. [0043] of Henry which discloses “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine instantaneous load values for the disc blades 46 and/or average load values for the disc blades 46 over time”) for a first disc blade of the plurality of disc blades and generate the sensor data over the period of time for a second disc blade of the plurality of disc blades (see at least para. [0044] of Henry which discloses “the sensor data 136 received from the force sensor(s) 60 may be monitored to determine a range of loads acting on one or more of the disc blades 46 over time”).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2021/0045278 A1) in view of Ridley (US 2010/0142759 A1) and further in view of Raveendranatha (US 2015/0184536 A1) and further in view of Hubner (US 2019/0124824 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses, wherein
the sensor data comprises an edge (Fig. 3 illustrates sensor 60 directed to the outer edge of the 4th disc blade 46 and see at least para. [0031] of Harvey which discloses “the force sensor(s) 60 may, in one embodiment, be mounted directly to component(s) of the disc gang assembly 44. For instance, in the illustrated embodiment, the force sensor(s) 60 is mounted directly to one or more disc blades 46 of the disc gang assembly 44 in order to detect the load acting on the disc gang assembly 44 as the disc blades 46 are being pulled through the ground”) of each of the plurality of disc blades, and the controller and the edge of each of the plurality of disc blades (see at least para. [0048] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be communicatively coupled to one or more components of the ganged disc assembly 44, such as the gang actuator 104, via a wired or wireless connection to allow control signals (e.g., indicated by dashed lines 146 in FIG. 4) to be transmitted from the controller 128 to the actuator 104. As such, the controller 128 may be configured to transmit control signals 146 to actuator 104 or associated components instructing the actuator 104 to adjust the downforce being applied to the ganged disc assembly 44 and/or disc blades 46” and see at least para. [0024] of Harvey which discloses “disc gang assembly 44 includes a toolbar 48 coupled to the implement frame 28 and a plurality of disc blades 46 supported by the toolbar 48 relative to the implement frame 28”, *Examiner interprets that since blade 46 is included in the assembly 44 which is coupled to the controller 128, then the controller is also coupled to fit a curve to the edge of the disc blade).
Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha, may not explicitly disclose wherein the
controller is configured to fit a curve to the edge of each of the plurality of disc blades.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hubner discloses wherein the controller (Fig. 15,
178 and see at least para. [0064] of Hubner which discloses “the sensor 262 is coupled to a controller (e.g., the controller 178) to receive signals from the sensor 262. Signals from the sensor 262 corresponding to the level of wear of the furrow opener 134 may be used by the controller to control one or more elements on the seeding machine 10 (e.g., depth adjustment mechanisms such as a support adjustment bar and support roller“) is configured to fit a curve to the edge (Fig. 14, 134 has an outer edge and see at least para. [0063] of Hubner which discloses “the sensor 262 may also or alternatively be used to monitor the quality of an outer edge of the furrow opener 134 (e.g., to detect roundness of the furrow opener 134, dents in the edge“) of each of the plurality of disc blades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the implement control system of Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha, to include wherein the controller is configured to fit a curve to the edge of each of the plurality of disc blades, as taught in Hubner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate the effective employ of analysis techniques of the components of the agricultural implement. See para. [0060] and [0063] of Hubner for motivation.
Regarding claim 20, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses, wherein
the sensor (Fig. 4, 60 and see at least para. [0030] of Henry which discloses “one or more force sensors 60 configured to detect a load acting one or more components”).
Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha, may not explicitly disclose that the
sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor, a LIDAR sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, or a proximity sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hubner discloses a sensor for an agricultural
implement that includes an ultrasonic sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor (see at least para. [0050] of Hubner which discloses “the wheel edge position sensor 148 f is an optical sensor, a capacitive sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a Hall Effect sensor, or a magneto-resistive sensor”), or a proximity sensor (see at least para. [0052] of Hubner which discloses “position sensor (e.g., an inductive proximity sensor, Hall Effect sensor, etc.)” (Examiner interprets that since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., an ultrasonic sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, or a proximity sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the detection system of Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha to includes sensors that comprises an ultrasonic sensor, a capacitive sensor, an optical sensor, or a proximity sensor; as taught in Hubner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate the easy detection of disc blade status while also providing effective sensor data at a reduced cost.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2021/0045278 A1) in view of Ridley (US 2010/0142759 A1) and further in view of Raveendranatha (US 2015/0184536 A1) and further in view of Finch (US20170234775A1).
Regarding claim 17, Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha discloses wherein the
controller is configured to determine the status (see at least para. [0045] of Henry which discloses “the controller 128 may be configured to identify the disc blades 46 as plugged when a monitored value indicative of the draft load acting on the disc blades 46 differs from a second monitored value indicative of draft load acting on the second disc blades of the separate ganged disc assembly by a given threshold”) of a respective disc blade of the plurality of disc blades (Fig. 3 illustrates the first disc blade 46 of the plurality of blades).
Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha may not explicitly disclose the plurality of
disc blades is operational based on a difference between the trace of the respective disc blade and the target trace being less than a threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor Finch discloses a difference between the trace of
the respective disc blade and the target trace being less than a threshold (see at least para. [0041] of Finch which discloses “processor 82 may determine location 222 of reference point 132 in 3D point cloud 224 as the position where a measure of distance between rays 218, 220 and rays from positions 214, 216 passing through reference point 132 is less than a threshold distance. Processor 82 may repeat these steps for each of the reference points 120-202 (see FIG. 5) to determine the locations of each of the reference points 120-202 in 3D point cloud 224”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the controller of Henry, as modified by Ridley and Raveendranatha to identify a difference between the trace of the respective disc blade and the target trace being less than a threshold, as disclosed in Finch with a reasonable expectation of success to determine whether a measured representation sufficiently corresponds to a reference representation within an acceptable tolerance range indicative of proper operation. See para. [0041] of Finch for motivation.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zemenchik (US 2020/0107490A1) discloses an agricultural implement controller includes a memory and a processor. The agricultural implement controller is configured to receive a first signal indicative of at least one pre-tillage image of a field and to determine a crop residue mass map of the field based on the at least one pre-tillage image. In addition, the agricultural implement controller is configured to receive a second signal indicative of a position of an agricultural tillage implement within the field. The agricultural implement controller is also configured to determine a target penetration depth, a target downforce, a target ground speed, or a combination thereof, of at least one ground engaging tool based on the crop residue mass map of the field and the position of the agricultural tillage implement. Kovach (US 2018/0279543 A1) discloses an implement having a frame extending between a forward end and an aft end. The implement may further include a plurality of ground-engaging tools supported by the frame, with the implement being configured to create or be traversed across a seedbed extending downwardly within the field from an outer seedbed surface to a seedbed floor. The system may also include an auxiliary support arm coupled to a portion of the frame at or adjacent to the aft end of the frame and a seedbed floor detection assembly coupled to the auxiliary support arm such that the seedbed floor detection assembly is located behind the ground-engaging tools relative to a forward travel direction of the implement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANA IVEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4896. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
/DANA D IVEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/D.D.I/May 7, 2026
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights