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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because it recites "the computing system is configured to determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks on the data generated by the field condition sensor." It appears the word "based" is missing between the words "disks" and "on" in line 11. Appropriate correction (or explanation) is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO's eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a method (process). As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 15 recites abstract limitations, including:
"accessing, with a computing system, an input indicative of a condition of the field;
determining, with the computing system, a minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the condition of the field;
receiving, with the computing system, load sensor data indicative of a draft load being applied to the frame;
determining, with the computing system, the draft load being applied to the frame based on the received load sensor data;
determining, with the computing system, when the at least one disk of the plurality of disks is plugged based on the determined draft load and the determined minimum load threshold value..."
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, other than reciting "with a computing system," nothing in the claim precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 15 recites additional elements of: a frame and a plurality of disks supported by the frame. Claim 15 also recites the additional element of "initiating, with the computing system, a control action associated with de-plugging the at least one disk when it is determined that the at least one disk is plugged." Claim 18 recites the additional element of a field map. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The computing system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system performing generic computer functions of accessing, receiving, and processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computing system and a tillage implement (including a frame and a plurality of disks). Although the additional elements limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (tillage implements) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. Further, the step of initiating a control action amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the tillage implement, the frame, the plurality of disks, the field map, and the computing system amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Again, the step of initiating a control action amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. It is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application. Initiating such control actions has been shown as well- understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner.
Regarding claims 16-20, the limitations therein merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 15, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry (US 2021/0045278; hereinafter referred to as "Henry") in view of Schoeny et al. (US 11,284,557; hereinafter referred to as "Schoeny '557")
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Henry discloses a tillage implement comprising a system for detecting disk plugging, the system comprising:
a frame (including 28);
a plurality of ground-engaging shanks (50) supported by the frame and configured to till soil as the tillage implement traverses a field;
a plurality of disks (46) supported by the frame, each disk configured to rotate relative to the soil of the field;
a load sensor (including 60) configured to generate data indicative of a draft load being applied to the frame by the plurality of disks as the tillage implement traverses the field (see para. 0030); and
a computing system (including 128) communicatively coupled to the load sensor, the computing system configured to:
determine a minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks (see paras. 0042-044);
determine the draft load being applied to the frame based on the data generated by the load sensor (see para. 0040); and
determine when the at least one disk of the plurality of disks is plugged based on the determined draft load and the determined minimum load threshold value (see paras. 0042-044).
Henry does not explicitly disclose the computing system accessing an input indicative of a condition of the field and determining the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the condition of the field. Schoeny '557 teaches a system for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement, the system comprising a computing system (including 38, 40, and/or 58, i.e., "the controller") communicatively coupled to a load sensor (including 120 and/or 130), the computing system configured to:
access an input indicative of a condition of the field (see col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and see col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16);
determine a minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of a plurality of disks based on the condition of the field (see col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and see col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16);
determine the draft load being applied to a frame based on the data generated by the load sensor (including 120 and/or 130); and
determine when the at least one disk of the plurality of disks is plugged based on the determined draft load and the determined minimum load threshold value (see col. 13, lines 9-14; col. 13, line 63 - col. 14, line 1; and col. 16, lines 66-65).
Schoeny '557 is analogous because Schoeny '557 discloses a system for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement, the system comprising a plurality of disks, a load sensor, and a computing system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Henry with field condition consideration and respective threshold determination means as taught by Schoeny '557 in order to reduce false alarms. Additionally, it is noted that threshold determination of this kind (i.e., with consideration of a condition of the field) is generally known to be utilized to control for false alarms in general tillage practice, as taught by Connell et al. (US 9,485,900) Further, providing Henry with the field condition consideration and respective threshold determination means of Schoeny '557 is use of a known technique (i.e., accessing an input indicative of a field condition and using it to determine a load threshold value indicative of plugging, as taught by Schoeny '557) to improve a similar device (i.e., the implement and system of Henry) in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Henry discloses the computing system (including 128) being configured to compare the determined draft load to the determined minimum load threshold value, and determine that the at least one disk is plugged when the determined draft load exceeds the determined minimum load threshold value (see paras. 0042-0044).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, in view of the modification made in relation to claims 1 and 4, Schoeny '557 teaches a field condition sensor (at least one sensor that provides "inputs sensed by sensors" in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17) communicatively coupled to the computing system, the field condition sensor configured to generate data indicative of the condition of the field, wherein:
when accessing the input indicative of the condition of the field, the computing system is configured to receive the data generated by the field condition sensor that is indicative of the condition of the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17); and
when determining the minimum load threshold value, the computing system is configured to determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the data generated by the field condition sensor (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 6, Schoeny '557 teaches the computing system being further configured to:
determine a moisture level of the soil ("soil moisture," in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17) of the field based on the data generated by the field condition sensor (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17); and
determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the determined moisture level of the soil of the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 6, Schoeny '557 teaches the computing system being further configured to:
determine a type of crop material within the field ("a type of the agricultural product applied by the agricultural implement 11," in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17) based on the data generated by the field condition sensor (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17); and
determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the determined type of crop material within the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 4, Schoeny '557 teaches the computing system, wherein:
when accessing the input indicative of the condition of the field, the computing system is configured to receive an operator input indicative of the condition of the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and as described in col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16); and
the computing system is further configured to determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the received operator input ("The threshold value may be based on operator inputs, ..." in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and "The threshold value(s) may be provided/selected by the operator ..." in col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16; wherein such inputs are indicative of or depend on field conditions as described).
Regarding claim 12, Henry discloses that when it is determined that the at least one disk of the plurality of disks is plugged, the computing system (including 128) is configured to initiate a control action associated with de-plugging the at least one disk (see paras. 0047-0048 and 0054).
Regarding claim 13, Henry discloses the control action comprising notifying an operator of the tillage implement ("e.g., by causing a visual or audible notification or indicator to be presented to the operator" in para. 0047) that the at least one disk is plugged (see paras. 0047-0048 and 0054).
Regarding claim 14, Henry discloses the control action comprising adjusting a ground speed (stopping forward motion or movement) of the tillage implement (see paras. 0047-0048 and 0054).
Regarding claim 15, Henry discloses a method for detecting disk plugging on a tillage implement, the tillage implement including a frame (including 28) and a plurality of disks (46) supported by the frame, each disk configured to rotate relative to soil of a field, the method comprising:
determining, with a computing system (including 128), a minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks (see paras. 0042-044);
receiving, with the computing system (including 128), load sensor data (from 60) indicative of a draft load being applied to the frame (see para. 0040);
determining, with the computing system (including 128), the draft load being applied to the frame based on the received load sensor data (see para. 0040);
determining, with the computing system (including 128), when the at least one disk of the plurality of disks is plugged based on the determined draft load and the determined minimum load threshold value (see paras. 0042-044); and
initiating, with the computing system (including 128), a control action associated with de-plugging the at least one disk when it is determined that the at least one disk is plugged (see paras. 0047-0048 and 0054).
Henry does not explicitly disclose accessing, with the computing system, an input indicative of a condition of the field; and determining, with the computing system, the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the condition of the field. Schoeny '557 teaches a method for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement, the agricultural implement including a frame (including 20 and/or linkages of 22) and a plurality of disks (including 90 and 96) supported by the frame, each disk configured to rotate relative to soil of a field, the method comprising:
accessing, with a computing system (including 38, 40, and/or 58, i.e., "the controller"), an input indicative of a condition of the field (see col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and see col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16);
determining, with the computing system, a minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the condition of the field (see col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and see col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16); and
determining, with the computing system, when the at least one disk of the plurality of disks is plugged based on a determined draft load (from 120 and/or 130) and the determined minimum load threshold value (see col. 13, lines 9-14; col. 13, line 63 - col. 14, line 1; and col. 16, lines 66-65).
Schoeny '557 is analogous because Schoeny '557 discloses a method for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Henry with accessing a field condition and determining a respective threshold as taught by Schoeny '557 in order to reduce false alarms. Additionally, providing Henry with the field condition consideration and respective threshold determination means of Schoeny '557 is use of a known technique (i.e., accessing an input indicative of a field condition and using it to determine a load threshold value indicative of plugging, as taught by Schoeny '557) to improve a similar device (i.e., the method of Henry) in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 16, Henry discloses determining when at least one disk of the plurality of disks (46) is plugged comprising:
comparing, with the computing system (including 128), the determined draft load to the determined minimum load threshold value (see paras. 0042-0044); and
determining, with the computing system (including 128), that the at least one disk (of 46) is plugged when the determined draft load exceeds the determined minimum load threshold value (see paras. 0042-0044).
Regarding claim 17, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Schoeny '557 teaches the method wherein:
accessing the input indicative of the condition of the field comprises receiving, with the computing system (including 38, 40, and/or 58, i.e., "the controller"), field condition sensor data ("inputs sensed by sensors" in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17) that is indicative of the condition of the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17); and
determining the minimum load threshold comprises determining, with the computing system, the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the received field condition sensor data (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17).
Regarding claim 19, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 15, Schoeny '557 teaches the method wherein:
accessing the input indicative of the condition of the field comprises receiving, with the computing system (including 38, 40, and/or 58, i.e., "the controller"), an operator input indicative of the condition of the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and as described in col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16); and
determining the minimum load threshold comprises determining, with the computing system, the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the received operator input ("The threshold value may be based on operator inputs, ..." in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17; and "The threshold value(s) may be provided/selected by the operator ..." in col. 15, line 59 - col. 16, line 16; wherein such inputs are indicative of or depend on field conditions as described).
Regarding claim 20, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 17, Schoeny '557 further teaches:
determining, with the computing system (including 38, 40, and/or 58, i.e., "the controller"), a moisture level of the soil ("soil moisture," in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17) of the field based on the received field condition sensor data (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17); and
determining, with the computing system, the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the determined moisture level of the soil of the field (as described in col. 5, line 62 - col. 6, line 17).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Schoeny '557 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sporrer et al. (US 2020/0344939; hereinafter referred to as "Sporrer")
Regarding claim 9, Schoeny '557 teaches the computer system being further configured to determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the data generated by the field condition sensor. Neither Henry nor Schoeny '557 explicitly discloses determining residue coverage as claimed. Sporrer teaches a system comprising a computing system configured to determine a residue coverage (as set forth in 700) within a field based on data generated by a field condition sensor (including 74); and control subsequent operation based on the residue coverage (as set forth in 700).
Sporrer is analogous because Sporrer discloses a system for a tillage implement, the system comprising a plurality of disks and a field condition sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with residue coverage determination means as taught by Sporrer in order to monitor and address variances in residue coverage. (See Sporrer, para. 0018.)
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Schoeny '557 as applied to claims 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Schoeny (US 11,262,344; hereinafter referred to as "Schoeny '344").
Regarding claim 10, Schoeny '557 teaches the computing system being further configured to determine the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the accessed field condition. Neither Henry nor Schoeny '557 explicitly discloses accessing a field map to identify the condition of the field as claimed. However, Schoeny '344 teaches a system for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement, the system comprising a computing system (including 128) configured to access a field map identifying a condition of a field at one or more locations within the field (see col. 12, lines 43-63).
Schoeny '344 is analogous because Schoeny '344 discloses a system for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement, the system comprising a plurality of disks, a plugging sensor, and a computing system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with field conditions from a field map as taught by Schoeny '344 in order to retrieve content corresponding to the implement's current location and/or previous locations over which the implement has passed and/or in order to generate a graphically displayed map or visual indicator. (See Schoeny '344, col. 12, lines 43-63, and col. 10, lines 51-65.)
Regarding claim 18, Schoeny '557 teaches determining, with the computing system, the minimum load threshold value indicative of plugging of the at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on the accessed field condition. Neither Henry nor Schoeny '557 explicitly discloses accessing, with the computing system, a field map identifying the condition of the field as claimed. Schoeny '344 teaches method for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement, the method comprising accessing, with a computing system (including 128), a field map identifying a condition of a field at one or more locations within the field (see col. 12, lines 43-63).
Schoeny '344 is analogous because Schoeny '344 discloses a method for detecting disk plugging on an agricultural implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with field conditions from a field map as taught by Schoeny '344 in order to retrieve content corresponding to the implement's current location and/or previous locations over which the implement has passed and/or in order to generate a graphically displayed map or visual indicator. (See Schoeny '344, col. 12, lines 43-63, and col. 10, lines 51-65.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. In particular, Connell et al. (US 9,485,900) teaches a system for detecting disk plugging on a tillage implement, the system comprising a plurality of disks (118), a rotational speed sensor (including 122), and a computing system (including 130) configured to determine a rotational threshold ratio indicative of plugging of at least one disk of the plurality of disks based on a condition of the field (see col. 8, lines 47-63).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/4/18/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights