DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
Examiner notes that Applicant has made frequent use of phrases such as “for” or “to”. In some cases, these terms may not amount to an actual positive recitation of a claim limitation and appear to only be provided for context of the actual limitations within the claim or otherwise indicate an intended result, use, or purpose of a preceding limitation. In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner has provided prior art where possible which Examiner believes teaches these recitations as positively recited limitations, regardless of if said interpretation are considered appropriate.
The limitation of “providing one or more control signals to …” has been interpreted as actual control/execution/actuation rather than only signal generation with no execution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 14, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Pope et al. (US 20230380316 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pope teaches:
A system for independently controlling front and rear gang angles on a tillage implement (See at least [0029] “tillage implement (a second device 110)”), comprising:
a controller (See at least [0031] “the first device 105 can be a computer included in a cab of a tractor 101” and [0114] “Computer 2400 can perform the functions of the first device 105 or the networked device 120 shown in FIG. 1, or one or more client devices”) comprising:
a memory encoding processor-executable routines (See at least [0115] “These processes and instructions may also be stored on a storage medium disk 2404 such as a hard drive (HDD)”); and
a processing system (See at least CPU 2401) configured to access the memory and to execute the processor-executable routines, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to (See at least [0117] “Further, CPU 2401 may be implemented as multiple processors cooperatively working in parallel to perform the instructions of the inventive processes described above”):
receive one or more inputs specifying a first angle for a first set of disc gangs of the tillage implement, a second angle for a second set of disc gangs of the tillage implement, or both the first angle and the second angle (See at least [0028] “the user can change their implement settings”, [0039] “there are many adjustments to parameters that can be made in order to obtain a desired field finish … An angle of the front gangs 220 and an angle of the rear gangs 225 can also be adjustable from, for example, 1° to 8°”, and [0070] “the angle of the front gangs 220 and/or the rear gangs 225 can be taken to a setpoint set by the user”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that it is clear that all settings may be adjusted. See discussion of lockout, enabling, etc. with respect to Figure 8, and in particular second box 805 (typographical error of Figure, should correspond to 870 of specification) which reads “Enable all adjustments and settings”); and
providing one or more control signals to actuators to independently alter respective angles of the first set of disc gangs and the second set of disc gangs relative to each other (See at least [0039] “The front gangs 220 angle and the rear gangs 225 angle can be adjusted independently, or together depending on field conditions, soil type, and desired finish” and [0139] “the parameter setpoint for the first set of material manipulators is an angle setpoint and the parameter setpoint for the second set of material manipulators is an angle setpoint, the angle setpoint of the first set of material manipulators is independent of the angle setpoint of the second set of material manipulators, and the method further comprises adjusting the first set of material manipulators via the first set of actuators to arrange the first set of material manipulators within the predetermined range of the angle setpoint of the first set of material manipulators independently from the second set of material manipulators”), wherein each disc gang of both the first set of disc gangs and the second set of disc gangs comprises a plurality of discs (See at least blades 205 and [0033] “The blades 205 can be circular, serrated blades”) coupled to a respective frame member (See at least [0034] “the blades 205 can be attached to a tube 210”) coupled to a main frame of the tillage implement (See at least [0034] “frame 215 of the second device 110”), the main frame comprises a front portion and a rear portion relative a direction of travel of the tillage implement, the first set of disc gangs is located at the front portion, and the second set of disc gangs is located at the rear portion (See at least Figure 2 and [0034] “The second device 110 can include first or front gangs 220 and second or rear gangs 225”).
Regarding Claim 2, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the actuators comprise a first set of actuators for altering the first angle of the first set of disc gangs and a second set of actuators for altering the second angle of the second set of disc gangs (See again [0139]), the first set of actuators fluidly coupled to a first hydraulic circuit, the second set of actuators is fluidly coupled to a second hydraulic circuit, and the first hydraulic circuit and the second hydraulic circuit are separate and independent from each other (See at least [0060] “Both the front gangs 220 and the rear gangs 225 can be independently plumbed circuits” and [0130] “In an embodiment, the first set of actuators and the second set of actuators are hydraulic actuators”).
Regarding Claim 3, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, further cause the processing system to receive feedback from one or more first sensors associated with the first set of disc gangs and one or more second sensors associated with the second set of disc gangs (See at least [0126] “the first device including processing circuitry configured to receive, from the implement, the transmitted monitored set of parameters of the first set of material manipulators and the second set of material manipulators”).
Regarding Claim 4, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 3, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, further cause the processing system to provide one or more additional control signals, based on the feedback, to the actuators to maintain both the first angle of the first set of disc gangs and the second angle of the second set of disc gangs (See at least [0126] “determine whether the first set of material manipulators or the second set of material manipulators is within a predetermined range of a parameter setpoint, and upon determining the first set of material manipulators or the second set of material manipulators is not within the predetermined range of the parameter setpoint, actuate the first set of actuators to adjust the first set of material manipulators or the second set of actuators to adjust the second set of material manipulators, wherein actuating the first set of actuators or the second set of actuators can be performed independently”).
Regarding Claim 8, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 3, further comprising the one or more first sensors associated with the first set of disc gangs and the one or more second sensors associated with the second set of disc gangs (See again the previous recitations. This appears effectively inherent to Claim 3 given the breadth of the term “system”).
Regarding Claim 9, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors are configured to determine respective positions of the actuators (See at least [0126] “a first set of sensors configured to monitor a set of parameters of the first set of material manipulators, a second set of sensors configured to monitor a set of parameters of the second set of material manipulators” and/or [0130] “the first set of sensors and the second set of sensors are rotary position sensors attached to linkages connected to the hydraulic first set of actuators and the hydraulic second set of actuators”).
Regarding Claim 10, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 8, wherein the one or more first sensors and the one or more second sensors are configured to determine respective angles of the respective frame members of the disc gangs (See at least [0126] “a first set of sensors configured to monitor a set of parameters of the first set of material manipulators, a second set of sensors configured to monitor a set of parameters of the second set of material manipulators”).
Regarding Claims 11 – 14 and 18 – 20, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 4 and 8 – 10 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 4 and 8 – 10 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. in view of Sporrer et al. (US 20200053941 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Pope teaches:
The system of claim 3,
…
[ of a work vehicle towing the tillage implement (See at least [0031] “the first device 105 can be a computer included in a cab of a tractor 101 attached to the second device 110”).
Pope does not explicitly teach, but Sporrer et al. explicitly teaches:
wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, further cause the processing system to cause, based on the feedback, display of both a current first angle of the first set of disc gangs and a current second angle of the second set of disc gangs on a graphical user interface in a cabin of a work vehicle towing the tillage implement (See at least [0035] “User interface device 508 can include display devices, mechanical or electrical devices (e.g., a steering wheel, joysticks, pedals, levers, buttons, etc.), audio devices, haptic devices and a variety of other devices. In one example, user interface logic 510 generates an operator display on user interface device 508 which can include a display device that is integrated into an operating compartment of vehicle 502, or it can be a separate display on a separate device that can be carried by an operator (such as a laptop computer, a mobile device, etc.)” and [0036] “In one example, an operator of vehicle 502 can provide a user input through user interface device 508 to modify an operating angle of one or more ground engaging tool(s) 130 of implement 102. For example, a display device can display a current operating angle for gangs of tool(s) 130 to an operator of vehicle 502 as determined by implement control system 122. A user input can then be provided through user interface device 508 to command the control system 122 to modify a current operating angle of the gangs of tool(s) 130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the graphical user interface (GUI) display pertinent sensor data including current gang angles as taught by Sporrer in the system of Pope with a reasonable expectation of success. Pope already discloses a graphical user interface, though not using such words (a display on a user interface used for interfacing with the device), as well as the user interacting with the device having the display for information/parameters/settings/etc. of the tillage implement. It would thus be of particular use for a user to make informed rather than blind decisions, as well as to be able to monitor those decisions.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Pope and Sporrer teaches:
The system of claim 5,
Pope further teaches:
wherein the one or more inputs are received via the graphical user interface.
(See at least [0134] “In an embodiment, the processing circuitry is further configured to display a preset adjustment profile to a user, the preset adjustment profile including preset parameter setpoints for the first set of material manipulators and the second set of material manipulators, receive, from the user, a selection indicating a desired preset adjustment profile, and transmit the desired preset adjustment profile to the implement, the implement adjusting the first set of material manipulators and the second set of material manipulators to the preset parameter setpoints”)
Regarding Claims 15 and 17, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 1 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 5 and 7 above.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al. in view of Sporrer et al., further in view of Hoff et al. (US 20060092033 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Pope and Sporrer teaches:
The system of claim 5,
Pope, or Pope in combination with Sporrer does not teach, but in combination with Hoff teaches:
wherein the processer-executable routines, when executed by the processing system, further cause the processing system to provide a notification on the graphical user interface when either the current first angle is outside a first desired range from the first angle or the current second angle is outside a second desired range from the second angle (See at least [0036] “Processor 302 may also execute software programs to monitor abnormal operational conditions and to display warning information on display 206. For example, processor 302 may collect oil pressure information from on-board modules 210. Processor 302 may then display the warning information to indicate to an operator that the oil pressure is outside of threshold values”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide warnings to a user when sensors detect abnormal conditions, such as values outside of thresholds as taught by Hoff in the system of Pope with a reasonable expectation of success. Pope already discloses monitoring of sensor values and determining if they deviate from ranges/thresholds of a setpoint (See e.g. Abstract, “determining whether the first set of material manipulators or the second set of material manipulators is within a predetermined range of a parameter setpoint”). Notifying a user that the tillage implement has deviated from a user setting would help to keep a user informed of the ongoing operations of the tillage implement. Notifications for deviations/abnormal conditions/etc. based on sensor values being outside of a range is ordinary and routine for devices, particularly vehicles.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 16 with respect to the application of prior art. The claim is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steinlage et al. (US 20170079196 A1) which discloses a tillage implement wherein “The angle of each disk with respect to a lateral vertical plane (sometimes referred to as the “steer” angle) and the angle of each disk with respect to a horizontal plane (sometimes referred to as the “tilt” angle) may be set as needed for good ground preparation” ([0059]) among other minute details of the structure of a tillage implement which appears to read on that disclosed by Applicant.
Ruckle et al. (US 20200053946 A1) which discloses a gang angle adjustment of a tillage implement in particular detail including the hydraulic structure.
Leinenger et al. (US 20220386519 A1) which discloses automated disk angle adjustment of a tillage implement, in particular at least four different gangs being individually adjusted, two for and two aft, in Figure 1.
Kovach (US 20210298222 A1) which discloses a monitoring and control system, including user interface for user input to the control system, for a tillage implement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657