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 .
Status of the Claims
The claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, 16-18 and 21-28 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 16, and 17; canceled claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20; and added claims 21-28.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed July 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, 16-18 and 21-28 are currently pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth in Non-Final rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that soil roughness as discussed by Zemenchik does not correspond to a soil type comprising a makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See Applicant’s Remarks, page 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the amended limitation. As set forth in the rejection, Zemenchik expressly discloses soil analysis including clay content (See paragraph [0019].), and further teaches determining a target parameter based on a signal indicative of a parameter of the soil (See paragraph [0043].) and adjusting pressure applied by the rolling basket through actuation of the actuator controlling the rolling basket (See paragraph [0052].). Stoller further teaches determining the defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit and defined soil finish (See paragraphs [0017], [0018], [0023], [0025].). Thus, when the teachings of Zemenchik and Stoller are considered in combination, the cited prior art teaches or suggests determining the defined basket assembly actuator position at least partially based on the soil type, soil compaction limit, and defined soil finish. Applicant additionally argues that Zemenchik does not determine a soil type and subsequently use the determined soil type to determine a soil compaction limit (See Applicant’s Remarks, pages 8-9). However, the rejection does not rely on paragraph [0048] in isolation. As set forth in the rejection, Zemenchik teaches soil analysis including clay content (See paragraph [0019].), teaches that the soil analyzer may output a signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and that the controller determines a target parameter based on the signal (See paragraph [0043].), and further teaches determining a target pressure in response to a detected level of soil compaction (See paragraph [0048].). The teachings of Zemenchik are considered together with the remaining applied prior art as set forth in the rejection. Accordingly, the cited prior art teaches or suggests determining the soil compaction limit based at least partially on the soil type. Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 16, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik (US 20170064900 A1) in view of Smith (US 20200390018 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Zemenchik teaches A method for operating an agricultural system, the method comprising: receiving, with a computing system, a defined soil finish (See at least paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 10” and paragraph [0046], “For example, the multiple soil analyzers 28 may send signals to the controller 96 indicative of the roughness values of multiple swaths of soil. The controller 96 may send signals to the soil conditioner controller 106 indicative of the roughness values of the soil. As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil.”); receiving, with the computing system, soil type data indicative of a soil type comprising a makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 102”, and paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.” The clay content corresponds to the soil type.); receiving, with the computing system, data indicative of a soil profile (See at least paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.” The received soil parameter, soil roughness, represents a characterization of soil conditions, thus constituting soil profile data.); determining, with the computing system, the soil type based on the soil type data (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 102”, and paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.”); determining, with the computing system, a soil compaction limit based at least partially on the soil profile and the soil type (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96”, and paragraph [0048], “While the preceding embodiments have been described in terms of soil conditioning (e.g., tillage) implements, the data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be used during other operations. For instance, during planting operations, cutters (e.g., ground engaging tools) that ameliorate the soil in preparation for deep deposition may be configured to penetrate the surface 22 of the soil at a greater depth to account for the compaction of the soil. For example, the analyzer 28 may send the first signal to the controller 96 indicative of a level of compaction of the soil. The controller 96 may determine a target cutter pressure (e.g., down pressure) sufficient to penetrate the soil to a desired depth.” The determined compaction level represents a soil compaction condition used to determine operating parameters, thus constituting a soil compaction limit, based on soil properties including roughness and clay content.); determining, with the computing system, a defined basket pressure for the defined soil finish based the soil compaction limit (See paragraph [0028], “Further, the implement 16 includes rolling baskets 44. The rolling baskets 44 are configured to condition the soil in preparation for planting via contact with the soil surface 22. In the illustrated embodiment, the rolling baskets 44 include a control system configured to selectively increase and decrease the force applied to the surface 22 via the rolling baskets 44. For example, as will be described below, an implement control system may send a signal to the rolling basket control system to increase the pressure applied by the rolling baskets 44. As a result, a hydraulic cylinder of the rolling basket control system may apply a greater force to the rolling baskets 44, thus inducing the rolling baskets to apply a greater pressure to the surface 22”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28”, and paragraph [0048], “While the preceding embodiments have been described in terms of soil conditioning (e.g., tillage) implements, the data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be used during other operations. For instance, during planting operations, cutters (e.g., ground engaging tools) that ameliorate the soil in preparation for deep deposition may be configured to penetrate the surface 22 of the soil at a greater depth to account for the compaction of the soil. For example, the analyzer 28 may send the first signal to the controller 96 indicative of a level of compaction of the soil. The controller 96 may determine a target cutter pressure (e.g., down pressure) sufficient to penetrate the soil to a desired depth.”).
Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining, with the computing system, a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels” and paragraph [0050], “The method 200 may include, at (202), determining at least one of an actuator position of an actuator coupled to the frame and configured to bias a ground-engaging tool towards an extended position during a tillage operation or a load value indicative of a force applied by the ground-engaging tool against soil during the tillage operation. For example, the controller 102 may determine the position of the actuator(s) 116 based on signals received from the position sensor(s) 112. Additionally or alternatively, the controller 102 may be configured to determine a load value that is indicative of the force 28 applied by the ground-engaging tool 20 against soil during the tillage operation based on signals received from the load sensor(s) 110.” The force applied corresponds to the basket pressure.); and generating, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels”, paragraph [0033], “The implement 10 may include one or more position sensors 34 configured to measure a position of the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be coupled to the actuator(s) 24 and/or integrated with the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be a variety of types of suitable linear sensors. Examples include linear variable differential transformer (LVDT), magnetic, optical, and/or any other suitable type of position sensor”, and paragraph [0057], “Similarly, the controller 102 may be configured to detect the underground object when the sensed position of one or more actuators 24 varies rapidly from the fully extended position.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine, with the computing system, a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure and generate, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0050], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 14, Zemenchik and Smith teach The method of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: determining, with a position sensor, a detected position of a basket assembly actuator (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels” and paragraph [0050], “The method 200 may include, at (202), determining at least one of an actuator position of an actuator coupled to the frame and configured to bias a ground-engaging tool towards an extended position during a tillage operation or a load value indicative of a force applied by the ground-engaging tool against soil during the tillage operation. For example, the controller 102 may determine the position of the actuator(s) 116 based on signals received from the position sensor(s) 112. Additionally or alternatively, the controller 102 may be configured to determine a load value that is indicative of the force 28 applied by the ground-engaging tool 20 against soil during the tillage operation based on signals received from the load sensor(s) 110.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine, with the computing system, a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure; generate, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position; and determine, with a position sensor, a detected position of a basket assembly actuator, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0050], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 16, Zemenchik and Smith teach The method of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: generating, with the computing system, a graphic related to at least one of the soil type, the soil profile, the soil compaction limit, and the defined basket pressure on a display (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels”, paragraph [0037], “The controller 102 may be communicatively coupled to an operator interface 108 of the work vehicle. In general, the operator interface 108 may correspond to any suitable input device(s) configured to allow the operator to provide operator inputs to the controller 102, such as a touch screen display, a keyboard, joystick, buttons, knobs, switches, and/or combinations thereof located within a cab of the work vehicle. The operator may provide various inputs into the system 100 via the operator interface 102. For example, the operator may input a desired reset pressure for the adjustable valve(s) via the operator interface 212”, paragraph [0050], “The method 200 may include, at (202), determining at least one of an actuator position of an actuator coupled to the frame and configured to bias a ground-engaging tool towards an extended position during a tillage operation or a load value indicative of a force applied by the ground-engaging tool against soil during the tillage operation. For example, the controller 102 may determine the position of the actuator(s) 116 based on signals received from the position sensor(s) 112. Additionally or alternatively, the controller 102 may be configured to determine a load value that is indicative of the force 28 applied by the ground-engaging tool 20 against soil during the tillage operation based on signals received from the load sensor(s) 110”, and paragraph [0059], “In some embodiments, the controller 102 may be configured to generate a tilling operation map that correlates the location of the implement within the field with sensed actuator position data and/or load values data associated with one or more actuators 24. For example, the controller 102 may receive signals from the location sensor(s) 118 and determine the location of the implement 10 within the field. The controller 102 may determine the positions of one or more actuator(s) 24 based on signals received from the position sensor(s) 112. The controller 102 may record the actuator position data with correlated location data such that a map of the actuator position data is generated. In addition or alternative, the controller 102 may receive signals from the load sensors 110 and record the sensed load values with correlated location data of the implement 10 such that a map of the sensed load values is generated.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine, with the computing system, a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure; generate, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position; and generate, with the computing system, a graphic related to the defined basket pressure on a display, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0037], [0050], [0057], [0059].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 25, Zemenchik and Smith teach The method of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches wherein the soil compaction limit is variable based on the makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like”, and paragraph [0046], “As noted above, in certain embodiments, multiple soil analyzers 28 may be communicatively coupled to multiple rolling baskets 44 to facilitate soil conditioning operations. For example, the system 10 may include an equal number of soil analyzers 28 and rolling baskets 44. Accordingly, the rolling baskets 44 may be individually controlled (e.g., pressure increased or decreased) via the soil conditioner controller 106 based on the data received from the soil analyzers 28. During conditioning operations, sections of the surface 22 may have different roughness values. For example, the multiple soil analyzers 28 may send signals to the controller 96 indicative of the roughness values of multiple swaths of soil. The controller 96 may send signals to the soil conditioner controller 106 indicative of the roughness values of the soil. As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil. As a result, different rolling baskets 44 may apply different pressures to the soil 22 based on the measurements of the respective soil analyzers 28. By analyzing the surface 22 at multiple points during a single pass, the individual rolling baskets 44 may condition different sections of the surface 22 differently. For example, the soil in front of each rolling basket 44 may vary in roughness and, as a result, the rolling baskets 44 may apply different pressures to the surface 22 to condition the soil. Accordingly, over-conditioning of the surface 22 may be reduced or eliminated by taking measurements of surface roughness at different sections across the implement 16 and individually adjusting the rolling baskets 44 accordingly.”).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik (US 20170064900 A1) in view of Stoller (US 20210007266 A1) and Smith (US 20200390018 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zemenchik teaches An agricultural system comprising: an implement including a frame assembly (See at least paragraph [0020], “FIG. 1 is a side view of an agricultural system 10. The agricultural system 10 includes a tow vehicle 12, a soil analyzer assembly 14 (e.g., assembly, analyzer assembly, etc.), and an agricultural implement 16” and paragraph [0021], “In the illustrated embodiment, the soil analyzer assembly 14 is coupled to the tow vehicle 12 via a hitch 18. Furthermore, as described in detail below, the agricultural implement 16 is attached to the tow vehicle 12 via a frame 20.”); a basket assembly operably coupled with the frame assembly (See paragraph [0028], “Further, the implement 16 includes rolling baskets 44. The rolling baskets 44 are configured to condition the soil in preparation for planting via contact with the soil surface 22. In the illustrated embodiment, the rolling baskets 44 include a control system configured to selectively increase and decrease the force applied to the surface 22 via the rolling baskets 44. For example, as will be described below, an implement control system may send a signal to the rolling basket control system to increase the pressure applied by the rolling baskets 44. As a result, a hydraulic cylinder of the rolling basket control system may apply a greater force to the rolling baskets 44, thus inducing the rolling baskets to apply a greater pressure to the surface 22.”); a basket assembly actuator operably coupled with the basket assembly and the frame assembly, the basket assembly actuator configured to alter a position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly (See at least paragraph [0028], “Further, the implement 16 includes rolling baskets 44. The rolling baskets 44 are configured to condition the soil in preparation for planting via contact with the soil surface 22. In the illustrated embodiment, the rolling baskets 44 include a control system configured to selectively increase and decrease the force applied to the surface 22 via the rolling baskets 44. For example, as will be described below, an implement control system may send a signal to the rolling basket control system to increase the pressure applied by the rolling baskets 44. As a result, a hydraulic cylinder of the rolling basket control system may apply a greater force to the rolling baskets 44, thus inducing the rolling baskets to apply a greater pressure to the surface 22” and paragraph [0046], “As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil.”); a computing system communicatively coupled to the basket assembly actuator, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system to: receive a defined soil finish (See at least paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 10” and paragraph [0046], “For example, the multiple soil analyzers 28 may send signals to the controller 96 indicative of the roughness values of multiple swaths of soil. The controller 96 may send signals to the soil conditioner controller 106 indicative of the roughness values of the soil. As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil.”); receive data indicative of a soil profile (See at least paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.” The received soil parameter, soil roughness, represents a characterization of soil conditions, thus constituting soil profile data.); receive soil type data indicative of a soil type comprising a makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 102”, and paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.” The clay content corresponds to the soil type.); determine a soil compaction limit based on the soil profile (See at least paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96” and paragraph [0048], “While the preceding embodiments have been described in terms of soil conditioning (e.g., tillage) implements, the data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be used during other operations. For instance, during planting operations, cutters (e.g., ground engaging tools) that ameliorate the soil in preparation for deep deposition may be configured to penetrate the surface 22 of the soil at a greater depth to account for the compaction of the soil. For example, the analyzer 28 may send the first signal to the controller 96 indicative of a level of compaction of the soil. The controller 96 may determine a target cutter pressure (e.g., down pressure) sufficient to penetrate the soil to a desired depth.” The determined compaction level represents a soil compaction condition used to determine operating parameters, thus constituting a soil compaction limit.); determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on…the soil type… (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like”, and paragraph [0052], “As described in detail above, the disclosed embodiments include a mounting assembly 26 configured to selectively position the agricultural soil analyzer 28 in the operation position 92, thereby positioning the agricultural soil analyzer 28 proximate to the surface 22 of the agricultural field 30. In certain embodiments, the operation position 92 places the analyzer 28 longitudinally rearward of the tow vehicle 12. However, in other embodiments, the operation position 92 places the analyzer 28 longitudinally forward of the tow vehicle 12. While in the operation position, the analyzer 28 emits acoustic waves into the soil and monitors the energy returned from the soil. The data obtained from the analyzer 28 is analyzed and/or relayed to the control system 94 to enhance tillage operations. For instance, the analyzer 28 may receive data indicating a high surface roughness and, upon receiving the data from the analyzer 28, the controller 96 may send a signal to the soil conditioning control system 106 directing the hydraulic control system 130 to increase the pressure applied to the surface 22 of the agricultural field 30 (e.g., by directing the hydraulic cylinder to extend a piston rod) by the rolling basket 44. As a result, real-time or near real-time adjustments may be made during soil conditioning operations to enhance and/or improve soil compaction. Moreover, the data may be uploaded to a database for further analysis.”).
Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Stoller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish (See at least paragraph [0017], “Another soil criteria 200 that is monitored or measured may include soil clod size criteria 200-3...A rotation sensor or angular deflection sensor 110-5 disposed on the arm or at a pivot point of the arm 130 indicates the size of soil clods 134 based on the rotation or angular deflection of the arm 130”, paragraph [0018], “As shown in FIG. 6, other instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure soil shatter criteria 200-4 may include a strain gauge or a deflection sensor 110-6 on a resilient arm 140, such as an S-tine on a field cultivator supporting a sweep or point 142, whereby as the resilient arm 140 bends backward during operation, the amount of backward bend or deflection measured by the deflection sensor 110-6 is correlated to the amount of soil compaction”, paragraph [0023], “When the soil monitoring system 100 detects or otherwise displays to the operator that soil clod size criteria 200-3 are too large, the soil monitoring system 100 may be programmed to display to the operator on the display monitor 112 an instruction for the operator to adjust the speed of travel. Additionally, or alternatively, the height adjustment actuator 30 may be actuated to increase the down pressure to force the entire main frame 12 lower with respect to the ground elevation to increase the depth of penetration of the tillage tools 20 into the soil. The height adjustment actuators 30 may be manually actuated by the operator from the cab of the tractor based on a notification displayed to the operator on the display monitor 112 in in response to signals received by the by the instrumentation 110, e.g., LiDar, optical height sensors, or arm rotation sensors or angular deflection sensors 110-5 (FIG. 5), detecting the soil clod size criteria 200-3. Alternatively the height adjustment actuators 30 may be automatically actuated based on a signal generated by the display monitor 112 in response to signals received by the by the instrumentation 110, e.g., LiDar, optical height sensors, or arm rotation sensor or angular deflection sensor 110-5 (FIG. 5), detecting soil clod size criteria 200-3. Additionally, or alternatively, depth adjustment actuators 40 or downforce actuators 60 coupled to the individual subframes 42 supporting disc gangs, rolling basket harrows, or other tillage tools may be manually or automatically adjusted as described above to force the subframes 42 downwardly with respect to the main frame 12 to increase the depth of penetration of the tillage tools 20 supported by the subframes into the soil or to increase the pressure applied by the tillage tool 20 to break up soil clods (such as, for example, a rolling basket harrow)”, and paragraph [0025], “When the soil monitoring system 100 detects or otherwise displays to the operator that the soil density criteria 200-2 based on spatial soil density changes or based on the depth location of soil density changes or based on the magnitude of soil density changes, the angular adjustment actuators 50 may be actuated to adjust of the disc gang or other tillage tools supported by a subframe 42. The angular adjustment actuators 50 may be manually actuated by the operator from the cab of the tractor based on a notification displayed to the operator on the display monitor 112 in in response to signals received by the by the instrumentation 110, e.g. strain gauges 110-3 (FIG. 4), hitch pin load cell 110-4 (FIG. 3), or deflection sensors 110-6 (FIG. 6), detecting soil density criteria 200-2. Alternatively the angular adjustment actuators 50 may be automatically actuated based on a signal generated by the display monitor 112 in response to signals received by the by the instrumentation 110, e.g. strain gauges 110-3 (FIG. 4), hitch pin load cell 110-4 (FIG. 3), or deflection sensors 110-6 (FIG. 6), detecting soil density criteria 200-2. Alternatively, or additionally, the height adjustment actuator 30 may be manually or automatically adjusted as described above to lower the entire main frame 12 with respect to the ground elevation to increase the depth of penetration of the tillage tools 20 into the soil. Additionally, or alternatively, depth adjustment actuators 40 or downforce actuators 60 coupled to the individual subframes 42 supporting disc gangs, rolling basket harrows, or other tillage tools may be manually or automatically adjusted as described above to lower the subframes 42 with respect to the main frame 12 to increase the depth of penetration into the soil or downforce of the tillage tools 20 supported by the subframes.” The soil clod size criteria corresponds to the soil finish.).
Zemenchik and Stoller do not explicitly disclose, however, Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels” and paragraph [0033], “The implement 10 may include one or more position sensors 34 configured to measure a position of the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be coupled to the actuator(s) 24 and/or integrated with the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be a variety of types of suitable linear sensors. Examples include linear variable differential transformer (LVDT), magnetic, optical, and/or any other suitable type of position sensor.”); and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels”, paragraph [0033], “The implement 10 may include one or more position sensors 34 configured to measure a position of the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be coupled to the actuator(s) 24 and/or integrated with the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be a variety of types of suitable linear sensors. Examples include linear variable differential transformer (LVDT), magnetic, optical, and/or any other suitable type of position sensor”, and paragraph [0057], “Similarly, the controller 102 may be configured to detect the underground object when the sensed position of one or more actuators 24 varies rapidly from the fully extended position.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller and Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0017], [0018], [0023], [0025].), and utilize a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 4, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches further comprising: a field sensor configured to capture data indicative of one or more conditions of a field across which the implement is towed (See at least paragraph [0018], “The embodiments described herein relate to a system and method for controlling an agricultural system based on soil roughness data from a soil analyzer. In certain embodiments, the soil analyzer may be a soil analyzer configured to emit acoustic waves against the soil surface and receive backscattered or reflected waves. Thereafter, a processor may evaluate the returned acoustic waves to determine a parameter of the soil, such as the roughness of the soil surface. Based on the surface roughness, a controller may send a signal to a ground engaging tool (e.g., a soil conditioner, a tillage implement, etc.) to adjust an operating parameter (e.g., to increase the pressure a rolling basket applies to the soil surface) to enhance soil preparation.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches further comprising: a location device, wherein at least one of the soil profile or the soil type is based at least partially on a position of the implement within a field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated soil map (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis” and paragraph [0025], “The soil analyzer 28 is a non-contact analyzer (e.g., soil surface sensor; low disruption or compaction sensor, etc.) that is configured to be positioned proximate (e.g., proximal) to the agricultural field 30 while obtaining data…Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the analyzer 28 includes integrated electronic/software components or systems including a global positioning system (GPS), data acquisition software, and the like.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Stoller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a display operably coupled with the computing system, the computing system configured to illustrate information related to at least one of the soil profile (See at least paragraph [0015], “The display monitor 112 interfaces with a global positioning system 114 and includes a user interface, such as a graphical user interface (GUI) and memory for storing the data comprising the soil criteria 200 in relation to the GPS coordinates for mapping the soil criteria 200 throughout the field.”), the soil compaction limit, the soil type, and a current position of the basket assembly.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller and Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish and utilize a display operably coupled with the computing system, the computing system configured to illustrate information related to at least one of the soil profile, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0015], [0017], [0018], [0023], [0025].), and utilize a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 10, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches further comprising: an implement sensor configured to detect one or more implement settings associated with the implement (See at least paragraph [0023], “FIG. 3 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the soil analyzer assembly 14 coupled between the tow vehicle 12 and the agricultural implement 16. In the illustrated embodiment, the soil analyzer assembly 14 includes a mounting assembly 26 coupled to the hitch 18. As shown, the frame 20 of the soil analyzer assembly 14 has a generally quadrilateral shape. However, it will be appreciated that other shapes may be utilized to support the mounting assembly 26 and a soil analyzer 28 (e.g., probe, meter, detector, analyzer, etc.) while enabling movement of the mounting assembly 26 from a stored position to an operation position” and paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Zemenchik teaches An agricultural system comprising: an implement including a frame assembly (See at least paragraph [0020], “FIG. 1 is a side view of an agricultural system 10. The agricultural system 10 includes a tow vehicle 12, a soil analyzer assembly 14 (e.g., assembly, analyzer assembly, etc.), and an agricultural implement 16” and paragraph [0021], “In the illustrated embodiment, the soil analyzer assembly 14 is coupled to the tow vehicle 12 via a hitch 18. Furthermore, as described in detail below, the agricultural implement 16 is attached to the tow vehicle 12 via a frame 20.”); a basket assembly operably coupled with the frame assembly (See paragraph [0028], “Further, the implement 16 includes rolling baskets 44. The rolling baskets 44 are configured to condition the soil in preparation for planting via contact with the soil surface 22. In the illustrated embodiment, the rolling baskets 44 include a control system configured to selectively increase and decrease the force applied to the surface 22 via the rolling baskets 44. For example, as will be described below, an implement control system may send a signal to the rolling basket control system to increase the pressure applied by the rolling baskets 44. As a result, a hydraulic cylinder of the rolling basket control system may apply a greater force to the rolling baskets 44, thus inducing the rolling baskets to apply a greater pressure to the surface 22.”); a basket assembly actuator operably coupled with the basket assembly and the frame assembly, the basket assembly actuator configured to alter a position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly (See at least paragraph [0028], “Further, the implement 16 includes rolling baskets 44. The rolling baskets 44 are configured to condition the soil in preparation for planting via contact with the soil surface 22. In the illustrated embodiment, the rolling baskets 44 include a control system configured to selectively increase and decrease the force applied to the surface 22 via the rolling baskets 44. For example, as will be described below, an implement control system may send a signal to the rolling basket control system to increase the pressure applied by the rolling baskets 44. As a result, a hydraulic cylinder of the rolling basket control system may apply a greater force to the rolling baskets 44, thus inducing the rolling baskets to apply a greater pressure to the surface 22” and paragraph [0046], “As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil.”); a computing system communicatively coupled to the basket assembly actuator, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system to: receive soil type data indicative of a soil type comprising a makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 102”, and paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.” The clay content corresponds to the soil type.); determine the soil type based on the soil type data (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0041], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a control system 94 configured to control the agricultural system 10. In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 94 includes a controller 96 having a memory 98 and a processor 100, and a user interface 102”, and paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96.”); determine a soil compaction limit based at least partially on the soil type (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96”, and paragraph [0048], “While the preceding embodiments have been described in terms of soil conditioning (e.g., tillage) implements, the data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be used during other operations. For instance, during planting operations, cutters (e.g., ground engaging tools) that ameliorate the soil in preparation for deep deposition may be configured to penetrate the surface 22 of the soil at a greater depth to account for the compaction of the soil. For example, the analyzer 28 may send the first signal to the controller 96 indicative of a level of compaction of the soil. The controller 96 may determine a target cutter pressure (e.g., down pressure) sufficient to penetrate the soil to a desired depth.” The determined compaction level represents a soil compaction condition used to determine operating parameters, thus constituting a soil compaction limit, based on soil properties including roughness and clay content.).
Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Stoller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit (See at least paragraph [0018], “As shown in FIG. 6, other instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure soil shatter criteria 200-4 may include a strain gauge or a deflection sensor 110-6 on a resilient arm 140, such as an S-tine on a field cultivator supporting a sweep or point 142, whereby as the resilient arm 140 bends backward during operation, the amount of backward bend or deflection measured by the deflection sensor 110-6 is correlated to the amount of soil compaction” and paragraph [0025], “When the soil monitoring system 100 detects or otherwise displays to the operator that the soil density criteria 200-2 based on spatial soil density changes or based on the depth location of soil density changes or based on the magnitude of soil density changes, the angular adjustment actuators 50 may be actuated to adjust of the disc gang or other tillage tools supported by a subframe 42. The angular adjustment actuators 50 may be manually actuated by the operator from the cab of the tractor based on a notification displayed to the operator on the display monitor 112 in in response to signals received by the by the instrumentation 110, e.g. strain gauges 110-3 (FIG. 4), hitch pin load cell 110-4 (FIG. 3), or deflection sensors 110-6 (FIG. 6), detecting soil density criteria 200-2. Alternatively the angular adjustment actuators 50 may be automatically actuated based on a signal generated by the display monitor 112 in response to signals received by the by the instrumentation 110, e.g. strain gauges 110-3 (FIG. 4), hitch pin load cell 110-4 (FIG. 3), or deflection sensors 110-6 (FIG. 6), detecting soil density criteria 200-2. Alternatively, or additionally, the height adjustment actuator 30 may be manually or automatically adjusted as described above to lower the entire main frame 12 with respect to the ground elevation to increase the depth of penetration of the tillage tools 20 into the soil. Additionally, or alternatively, depth adjustment actuators 40 or downforce actuators 60 coupled to the individual subframes 42 supporting disc gangs, rolling basket harrows, or other tillage tools may be manually or automatically adjusted as described above to lower the subframes 42 with respect to the main frame 12 to increase the depth of penetration into the soil or downforce of the tillage tools 20 supported by the subframes.” The detected soil compaction limit corresponds to a soil compaction limit used to determine actuator adjustment.).
Zemenchik and Stoller do not explicitly disclose, however, Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an implement sensor configured to generate data indicative of a detected basket assembly actuator position (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels”, paragraph [0033], “The implement 10 may include one or more position sensors 34 configured to measure a position of the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be coupled to the actuator(s) 24 and/or integrated with the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be a variety of types of suitable linear sensors. Examples include linear variable differential transformer (LVDT), magnetic, optical, and/or any other suitable type of position sensor”, paragraph [0050], “The method 200 may include, at (202), determining at least one of an actuator position of an actuator coupled to the frame and configured to bias a ground-engaging tool towards an extended position during a tillage operation or a load value indicative of a force applied by the ground-engaging tool against soil during the tillage operation. For example, the controller 102 may determine the position of the actuator(s) 116 based on signals received from the position sensor(s) 112. Additionally or alternatively, the controller 102 may be configured to determine a load value that is indicative of the force 28 applied by the ground-engaging tool 20 against soil during the tillage operation based on signals received from the load sensor(s) 110.”); and generate an instruction to alter a position of the basket assembly actuator based on a variation between the defined basket assembly actuator position and the detected basket assembly actuator position (See at least paragraph [0002], “Tillage implements may also include additional ground-engaging tools, such as harrows configured to level or otherwise flatten any windrows or ridges in the soil and/or baskets configured to reduce the number of clods in the soil and/or firm the soil over which the implement travels”, paragraph [0033], “The implement 10 may include one or more position sensors 34 configured to measure a position of the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be coupled to the actuator(s) 24 and/or integrated with the actuator(s) 24. The position sensors 34 may be a variety of types of suitable linear sensors. Examples include linear variable differential transformer (LVDT), magnetic, optical, and/or any other suitable type of position sensor”, and paragraph [0057], “Similarly, the controller 102 may be configured to detect the underground object when the sensed position of one or more actuators 24 varies rapidly from the fully extended position.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller and Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0018].), and utilize an implement sensor configured to generate data indicative of a detected basket assembly actuator position and generate an instruction to alter a position of the basket assembly actuator based on a variation between the defined basket assembly actuator position and the detected basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0050], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 18, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The system of claim 17, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Stoller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the soil compaction limit is based at least partially on a soil profile, the soil profile determined by data generated by one or more field sensors (See at least paragraph [0017], “Another soil criteria 200 that is monitored or measured may include soil clod size criteria 200-3. The instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure soil clod size criteria 200-3 may include a surface scanner, such as a light detection and ranging (LiDar) system disposed to scan the surface of the soil behind the tillage implement 10. Other instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure the soil clod size criteria 200-3 may include an optical height sensor disposed to detect the varying heights of clods relative to a predetermined elevation thereby indicating the size of soil clods based on the varying distances. Other instrumentation 110 can be spectrophotometer, camera, time-of-flight camera, ground-penetrating radar, sonar, x-ray, electrical conductivity, and electromagnetic induction. Other instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure the soil clod size criteria 200-3 may include an arm 130 with a wheel 132 which rides over the soil surface as shown in FIG. 5A. Alternatively, a resilient horizontal member 133, such as a ski or seed firmer, could replace wheel 132 as shown in FIG. 5B. A rotation sensor or angular deflection sensor 110-5 disposed on the arm or at a pivot point of the arm 130 indicates the size of soil clods 134 based on the rotation or angular deflection of the arm 130. Instead of a rotation sensor, a pressure sensor or other suitable sensors may be used to detect the angular deflection of the arm 130” and paragraph [0018], “As shown in FIG. 6, other instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure soil shatter criteria 200-4 may include a strain gauge or a deflection sensor 110-6 on a resilient arm 140, such as an S-tine on a field cultivator supporting a sweep or point 142, whereby as the resilient arm 140 bends backward during operation, the amount of backward bend or deflection measured by the deflection sensor 110-6 is correlated to the amount of soil compaction.” The soil criteria corresponds to a soil profile.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller and Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit and wherein the soil compaction limit is based at least partially on a soil profile, the soil profile determined by data generated by one or more field sensors, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0017], [0018].), and utilize an implement sensor configured to generate data indicative of a detected basket assembly actuator position and generate an instruction to alter a position of the basket assembly actuator based on a variation between the defined basket assembly actuator position and the detected basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0050], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 21, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches wherein the soil compaction limit is variable based on the makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like”, and paragraph [0046], “As noted above, in certain embodiments, multiple soil analyzers 28 may be communicatively coupled to multiple rolling baskets 44 to facilitate soil conditioning operations. For example, the system 10 may include an equal number of soil analyzers 28 and rolling baskets 44. Accordingly, the rolling baskets 44 may be individually controlled (e.g., pressure increased or decreased) via the soil conditioner controller 106 based on the data received from the soil analyzers 28. During conditioning operations, sections of the surface 22 may have different roughness values. For example, the multiple soil analyzers 28 may send signals to the controller 96 indicative of the roughness values of multiple swaths of soil. The controller 96 may send signals to the soil conditioner controller 106 indicative of the roughness values of the soil. As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil. As a result, different rolling baskets 44 may apply different pressures to the soil 22 based on the measurements of the respective soil analyzers 28. By analyzing the surface 22 at multiple points during a single pass, the individual rolling baskets 44 may condition different sections of the surface 22 differently. For example, the soil in front of each rolling basket 44 may vary in roughness and, as a result, the rolling baskets 44 may apply different pressures to the surface 22 to condition the soil. Accordingly, over-conditioning of the surface 22 may be reduced or eliminated by taking measurements of surface roughness at different sections across the implement 16 and individually adjusting the rolling baskets 44 accordingly.”).
Regarding Claim 22, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik and Stoller do not explicitly disclose, however, Smith, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein results of the generated instructions are used to alter subsequent instructions (See at least paragraph [0052], “The method 200 may include, at (204), adjusting a reset pressure associated with the adjustable valve 114 based on the actuator position and/or the load value. The controller 102 may generally be configured to adjust the reset pressure such that the actuator stays fully extended unless impacted by an underground object. In other words, the controller 102 may adjust the reset pressure such that the force 28 applied by soil against the ground-engaging tool 20 does not frequently pivot the ground-engaging tool 20 from the fully extended position during normal operation. Instead, the hydraulic pressure inside the actuator 116 may generally maintain the actuator 116 in the fully extended position”, paragraph [0053], “Referring to FIG. 5, in some embodiments, the method 200 may include detecting a low pressure pattern associated with the sensed actuator position and increasing the reset pressure when the low pressure pattern is detected. FIG. 5 illustrates a simplified example of a low pressure pattern 300 with the sensed actuator position 302 on the vertical axis and time 304 on the horizontal axis. The low pressure pattern 300 may include the sensed actuator position 302 varying from a fully extended position 306 by more than a predetermined threshold 308, for example at T.sub.1. Such a pattern 30( )indicates that the force 28 applied by the soil against the ground-engaging tool 20 is compressing the actuator 24”, and paragraph [0054], “In some embodiments, the low pressure pattern 300 may include the sensed actuator position 302 varying from the fully extended position 306 by more than the predetermined threshold 308 at a frequency that is greater than a predetermined frequency. For example, in the example low pressure pattern 300, the sensed actuator position 302 varies from the fully extended position 306 by more than the predetermined threshold 308 at T.sub.2, and T.sub.3. When the reset pressure is too low for the soil conditions and/or tillage speed, the actuator 116 may alternate between fully extended and slightly compressed. The controller 102 may be configured to detect the frequency of such occurrences (e. T.sub.1, T.sub.2, and T.sub.3) based on the number of times the sensed actuator position 302 exceeds the predetermined threshold 308 within a set unit of time (e.g., one second, ten seconds, one minute, etc.). The controller 102 may compare the frequency of such occurrences with a predetermined frequency threshold to determine if a low pressure pattern is occurring.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller and Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0017], [0018], [0023], [0025].), and utilize a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly; generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position; and wherein results of the generated instructions are used to alter subsequent instructions, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0052]-[0054], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 24, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 4, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik does not explicitly disclose, however, Stoller, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the field sensor is configured to capture the data to a defined distance below a surface of the field (See at least paragraph [0019], “Other instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure soil shatter criteria 200-4 may include x-ray, sonar, ground-penetrating radar, electromagnetic induction, and/or electrical conductivity. Electrical conductivity measurement may be made on or between neighboring shanks (or other tillage tools), with the electrical conductivity correlated to a level of soil shatter. For example, lower conductivity is correlated with greater soil shatter, which corresponds to less soil compaction. An embodiment of a shank 120 instrumented with electrical conductivity sensors 110-7 is shown in FIG. 7. By positioning the electrical conductivity sensors 110-7 at different locations along the shank 120, electrical conductivity at varying depths may be identified based on the electrical conductivity output along the length of the shank. As the tillage implement 10 passes through the field, the electrical conductivity at different locations across the field will result in a depth versus electrical conductivity profile of the soil for generating a soil electrical conductivity map of the field” and paragraph [0020], “Another soil criteria 200 that is monitored or measured may include soil density criteria 200-2 based on spatial soil density changes or based on the depth location of soil density changes or based on the magnitude of soil density changes. The instrumentation 110 used to monitor or measure soil density criteria 200-2 based on spatial density changes may include GPR or strain gauges 110-3 mounted to the tillage tools 20 of the tillage implement 10 as discussed in more detail below. Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 3, a load cell 110-4 may be incorporated into the drawbar hitch pin. Similarly, to monitor or measure soil density criteria 200-2 based on depth location of soil density changes or magnitude of soil density changes, the instrumentation may include GPR, a potentiometer, or strain gauges 110-3 positioned at different points along the tillage tool 20 or an arm supporting the tillage tool with the strain gauges correlated to soil density. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, an embodiment of a shank 120 is shown with strain gauges 110-3 positioned at different locations along the shank 120. By positioning the strain gauges 110-3 at different locations along the shank 120, soil compaction layers at varying depths may be identified based on strain gauge output along the length of the shank thereby measuring the depth and/or magnitude of the soil density changes across the field. As the tillage implement 20 passes through the field, the strain measured by the strain gauges at different locations across the field will result in a depth-versus-strain profile of the soil for generating a soil density map of the field.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller and Smith such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish and wherein the field sensor is configured to capture the data to a defined distance below a surface of the field, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0017], [0018]-[0020], [0023], [0025].), and utilize a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0057].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 27, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The system of claim 17, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches wherein the soil compaction limit is variable based on the makeup of sand, silt, or clay (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis. Using multiple passes increases the cost and the time it takes for operators to condition, fertilize, and plant the field. Combining the soil analysis and conditioning processes obviates at least one field pass that operators may make when preparing fields for planting. Moreover, by conducting soil analysis closer to actual planting operations, current data related to soil conditions is generated, such as roughness, salinity, cation exchange capacity, clay content, or the like. As a result, efficiency may be increased, along with yields”, paragraph [0043], “As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like”, and paragraph [0046], “As noted above, in certain embodiments, multiple soil analyzers 28 may be communicatively coupled to multiple rolling baskets 44 to facilitate soil conditioning operations. For example, the system 10 may include an equal number of soil analyzers 28 and rolling baskets 44. Accordingly, the rolling baskets 44 may be individually controlled (e.g., pressure increased or decreased) via the soil conditioner controller 106 based on the data received from the soil analyzers 28. During conditioning operations, sections of the surface 22 may have different roughness values. For example, the multiple soil analyzers 28 may send signals to the controller 96 indicative of the roughness values of multiple swaths of soil. The controller 96 may send signals to the soil conditioner controller 106 indicative of the roughness values of the soil. As a result, the soil conditioner controller 106 may send signals to the hydraulic control system 130 to instruct the actuators 132 to urge the multiple rolling baskets 44 toward the surface 22 based on the different roughness values of the swaths of soil. As a result, different rolling baskets 44 may apply different pressures to the soil 22 based on the measurements of the respective soil analyzers 28. By analyzing the surface 22 at multiple points during a single pass, the individual rolling baskets 44 may condition different sections of the surface 22 differently. For example, the soil in front of each rolling basket 44 may vary in roughness and, as a result, the rolling baskets 44 may apply different pressures to the surface 22 to condition the soil. Accordingly, over-conditioning of the surface 22 may be reduced or eliminated by taking measurements of surface roughness at different sections across the implement 16 and individually adjusting the rolling baskets 44 accordingly.”).
Regarding Claim 28, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The system of claim 17, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik teaches further comprising: a location device, wherein the soil type is based at least partially on a position of the implement within a field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated soil map (See at least paragraph [0019], “Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. For example, one pass may be used to conduct soil analysis, in which the operator tows equipment over the agricultural field to obtain data for evaluation. The data may then be evaluated to generate soil maps or yield maps indicating a variety of field properties. The soil maps may be used to direct future planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations. Then, subsequent passes may be used to condition the soil, fertilize the soil, and/or deposit seeds into the soil. During the planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage process, the operator may consult the soil maps to adjust planting rates, fertilizing rates, and/or tillage operations based on the properties obtained from the soil analysis” and paragraph [0025], “The soil analyzer 28 is a non-contact analyzer (e.g., soil surface sensor; low disruption or compaction sensor, etc.) that is configured to be positioned proximate (e.g., proximal) to the agricultural field 30 while obtaining data…Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the analyzer 28 includes integrated electronic/software components or systems including a global positioning system (GPS), data acquisition software, and the like.”).
Claim(s) 5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik (US 20170064900 A1) in view of Stoller (US 20210007266 A1), Smith (US 20200390018 A1), and Long (US 20250008861 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith do not explicitly disclose, however, Long, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a user interface, wherein the computing system receives the data indicative of the soil type through an operator-provided input to the user interface (See at least paragraph [0065], “As illustrated, at (202), the method 200 can include receiving soil data indicative of a soil type with a computing system. As provided herein, the soil data may be received through various sources. For instance, the sources can include a field sensor(s) configured to capture data indicative of one or more conditions of the field, a user interface in which the soil data can be provided to the computing system through the user interface, a location device in which the soil data can be based at least partially on a position of the implement within the field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated soil map, and/or through any other manner.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller, Smith, and Long such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0017], [0018], [0023], [0025].), and utilize a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0057].), and to utilize a user interface, wherein the computing system receives the data indicative of the soil type through an operator-provided input to the user interface, as taught by Long (See paragraph [0065].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].). The motivation for doing so would be preparing the field for subsequent planting operations, as taught by Long (See paragraph [0002].).
Regarding Claim 23, Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith teach The agricultural system of claim 1, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik, Stoller, and Smith do not explicitly disclose, however, Long, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a user interface, wherein the computing system receives the defined soil finish through an operator-provided input to the user interface (See at least paragraph [0061], “As illustrated, the data analysis module 124 may receive various implement settings from one or more implement sensor(s) 128 configured to detect one or more implement settings associated with the implement 14. In addition, the data analysis module 124 can receive a measured soil levelness from one or more field sensor(s) 52. The data analysis module 124 may also receive data indicative of a soil type within the field 16 from the field sensor(s) 52 and/or one or more input devices 140. In various cases, the one or more input devices 140 can include one or more user interfaces 104 for allowing operator inputs to be provided to the computing system 102 (e.g., buttons, knobs, dials, levers, joysticks, touch screens, and/or the like), one or more other internal data sources 142 associated with the agricultural machine 10 (e.g., other devices, stored data, databases, etc.), one or more external data sources 144 (e.g., a remote computing device or server), and/or any other suitable input devices 140. Further, the data analysis module 124 may receive a defined soil levelness from the input devices 140. In some cases, the defined soil levelness can be a numerical value that defines a desired ridge-to-valley terrain of the field 16” and paragraph [0067], “At (206), the method 200 can include receiving a defined soil levelness with the computing system. In various examples, the defined soil levelness may be received through the user interface, predetermined lookup tables, other machines, remote sources, and/or through any other manner.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Stoller, Smith, and Long such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the soil compaction limit…and the defined soil finish, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0017], [0018], [0023], [0025].), and utilize a position sensor operably coupled with the basket assembly actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0057].), and to utilize a user interface, wherein the computing system receives the defined soil finish through an operator-provided input to the user interface, as taught by Long (See paragraph [0061], [0067].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving soil conditions and seed bed preparation, as taught by Stoller (See paragraph [0002].). The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].). The motivation for doing so would be preparing the field for subsequent planting operations, as taught by Long (See paragraph [0002].).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik (US 20170064900 A1) in view of Smith (US 20200390018 A1) and Long (US 20250008861 A1).
Regarding Claim 26, Zemenchik and Smith teach The method of claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Zemenchik and Smith do not explicitly disclose, however, Long, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein receiving the defined soil finish comprises receiving, with the computing system, the defined soil finish through an operator-provided input to an input device (See at least paragraph [0061], “As illustrated, the data analysis module 124 may receive various implement settings from one or more implement sensor(s) 128 configured to detect one or more implement settings associated with the implement 14. In addition, the data analysis module 124 can receive a measured soil levelness from one or more field sensor(s) 52. The data analysis module 124 may also receive data indicative of a soil type within the field 16 from the field sensor(s) 52 and/or one or more input devices 140. In various cases, the one or more input devices 140 can include one or more user interfaces 104 for allowing operator inputs to be provided to the computing system 102 (e.g., buttons, knobs, dials, levers, joysticks, touch screens, and/or the like), one or more other internal data sources 142 associated with the agricultural machine 10 (e.g., other devices, stored data, databases, etc.), one or more external data sources 144 (e.g., a remote computing device or server), and/or any other suitable input devices 140. Further, the data analysis module 124 may receive a defined soil levelness from the input devices 140. In some cases, the defined soil levelness can be a numerical value that defines a desired ridge-to-valley terrain of the field 16” and paragraph [0067], “At (206), the method 200 can include receiving a defined soil levelness with the computing system. In various examples, the defined soil levelness may be received through the user interface, predetermined lookup tables, other machines, remote sources, and/or through any other manner.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Zemenchik with the teachings of Smith and Long such that the agricultural system of Zemenchik is further configured to determine, with the computing system, a defined basket assembly actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure and generate, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket assembly actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket assembly actuator position, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0002], [0033], [0050], [0057].), and wherein receiving the defined soil finish comprises receiving, with the computing system, the defined soil finish through an operator-provided input to an input device, as taught by Long (See paragraph [0061], [0067].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be improving automatic control of an implement during tillage operation performance, as taught by Smith (See paragraph [0004].).
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 JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
