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 Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/463,503, with an effective filing date of 9/8/2023. Claims 1-5, 7-19 are currently pending. Claims 6 and 20 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Claim Objection section in Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, and subsequently withdraws the previous objections to said section. However, due to the amendments new objections are made to the claims as detailed below.
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding the rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 USC § 112(b) in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7. The Examiner has considered the amended claim limitation and acknowledges that claims 18-19 have been properly amended to clarify which flow of soil the claim is referring to and the rejection is withdrawn.
However, regarding the rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 USC § 112(b), the Applicant did not amend claim 2 line 2, as directed in the previous Office Action, in order to clarify which flow of soil the limitation is referring to and, therefore, the rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been maintained.
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding 35 USC § 101 to claims 1, 10, and 17 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7. The Examiner has considered the amended claim limitation initiate a control action when determined that the ground-engaging tool is plugged and the amendment properly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1-16 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0404830 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Ferrari], in view of Ott et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0035748 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Ott], the Applicant argues (see pp. 8-9) that the combination of references neither disclose nor teach the limitation remove one or more components of the agricultural implement from the generated representation such that a modified representation of the flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving is created. However, as discussed in the previous Office Action, Ferrari discloses in [0024] sentence (s.)1, one or more radar sensors for use in monitoring the flow of soil around one or more ground-engaging tools of the implement and generating representation(s) of the flow of soil around the ground-engaging tool may include a plurality of three-dimensional images of the soil flow(s) ([0015] emphasis added to note the implement as being an undesired zone of the representation). This combined with the modifying representations to mask undesired zones as taught in Ott [0067], and in Figs. 3 a-b as seen below, it is reasonable to combine the radar generated representations of Ferrari and to emphasize soil flows with the radar data visualization modification teachings of Ott.
Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 17-20 as being unpatentable over Ferrari in view of Ott and Anderson et al. (US Pat. No. 4,108,249 A) [hereinafter referred to as Anderson], the Applicant argues (see pp. 9-11) that the combination of references neither disclose nor teach the limitation remove one or more components of the agricultural implement from the generated representation such that a modified representation of the flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving is created.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Regarding the both the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-16 and 17-20, respectively, the Applicant argues (see pp.11-13) that Ferrari and Ott are non-analogous art.
However, as both references are based in radar technology, it is construed as being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding independent claim 10, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, these claims recite similar features to claim 1 and their rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 5 appears to contain a typographical error where the limitation compare comparing which should be corrected to .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation a flow of the soil in Claim 2 line 3 lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if this is a different flow of the soil or the same flow of the soil that previously recited in claim 1 line 5.
Claim 3 is also rejected as it inherits the rejection of the claim from which it is based.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0404830 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ferrari, in view of Ott et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0035748 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ott.
Regarding claim 1, Ferrari discloses:
A system for detecting plugging of an agricultural implement, the system comprising: a ground-engaging tool configured to be moved through soil of a field as the agricultural implement travels across the field ([0016] sentence (s.) 5, controller may be configured to determine that the ground-engaging tool(s) is plugged when the determined soil accumulation exceeds a predetermined accumulation amount);
a radar sensor configured to generate data indicative of a flow of the soil in a portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving ([0024] s.1, one or more radar sensors for use in monitoring the flow of soil around one or more ground-engaging tools of the implement); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the radar sensor, the computing system configured to: generate a representation of the flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving based on the received data from the radar sensor ([0015] s.5, one or more radar sensors for use in monitoring the flow of soil around one or more ground-engaging tools of the implement);
determine when the ground-engaging tool is plugged based on the modified representation ([0016] as disclosed above); and
initiate a control action when determined that the ground-engaging tool is plugged ([0043] s.1, the controller may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when it is determined that the ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement is plugged).
Although Ferrari discloses in [0024] sentence (s.)1, one or more radar sensors for use in monitoring the flow of soil around one or more ground-engaging tools of the implement and generating representation(s) of the flow of soil around the ground-engaging tool may include a plurality of three-dimensional images of the soil flow(s) ([0015] emphasis added to note the implement as being an undesired zone of the representation), Ferrari does not explicitly disclose:
remove one or more components of the agricultural implement from the generated representation such that a modified representation of the flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving is created.
However, Ott teaches in [0067], and in Figs. 3 a-b as seen below, that both, the range-Doppler representation 300a (below) and the range-angle representation 300b are modified for masking the undesired zone 310a, 310b in the radar data, e.g., by cutting out or zeroing a certain range or a certain range and angle, respectively. The cutting, cropping, or zeroing in on a certain range within the doppler field is construed as modifying a representation based on radar data by removing components that are necessarily comprising the one or more components of the agricultural implement.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
315
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and radar data visualization before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural implement control system and method of Ferrari, by incorporating the removing of undesired radar data teachings of Ott, such that the combination, as acknowledged by Ott in [0046] s.1, allows improved detection with a focus on the detection zone as well as increased computing efficiency.
Claim 10 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to:
determine a flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving based on the modified representation ([0006] s.3, monitoring, with the one or more computing devices, the flow of the soil around the ground-engaging tool within the generated representation and [0016] where controller determines various aspects of the speed and direction of the soil which is interpreted as the flow of the soil);
compare comparing the determined flow of the soil to a predetermined threshold flow of the soil ([0016] as disclosed in claim 1 and [0039] s.4-5 minimum particle speed threshold which is construed as comparing the determined flow with a predetermined threshold flow of soil); and
determine that the ground-engaging tool is plugged when the determined flow falls outside of the predetermined threshold flow of the soil (see claim 1 specifically [0016]).
Claim 11 recites a method, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein:
the flow of the soil comprises a speed of the soil relative to a ground speed of the agricultural implement ([0039 s.2 and [0040] s.1, determined speeds and direction (respectively) of the soil units are relative to the ground-engaging tool(s) which is construed as the speed of the soil being relative to the ground speed of the implement); and
the predetermined threshold flow of the soil comprises a predetermined soil speed threshold ([0039] s.4-5 minimum particle speed threshold which is construed as comparing the determined flow with a predetermined threshold flow of soil).
Regarding claim 4, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein, removing the one or more components of the agricultural implement from the generated representation comprises removing the ground-engaging tool of the agricultural implement from the generated representation (see claim 1 regarding Ott and the zeroing in on radar data images via cropping to remove undesired zones).
Claim 12 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein, removing the one or more components of the agricultural implement from the generated representation comprises removing a wheel of the agricultural implement from the generated representation (see claim 1 and claim 4 regarding the zeroing in on certain areas of radar data to remove undesired zones which necessarily would comprise of the wheel of the implement).
Claim 13 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and incorporate the limitations into independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is no longer being considered.
Regarding claim 7, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein initiating the control action comprises notifying an operator of the agricultural implement that the ground-engaging tool is plugged ([0041] s.1, provide a notification to an operator of the implement associated with the determined accumulation(s) of the soil of the ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement and is construed as initiating a control action).
Claim 14 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein initiating the control action comprises adjusting a ground speed of the agricultural implement ([0044] s.1, controller may be configured to automatically adjust the ground speed at which the implement/vehicle is traveling across the field when it is determined one or more ground-engaging tools of the implement are plugged and is construed as initiating a control action).
Claim 15 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 8 above, therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein initiating the control action comprises adjusting a soil penetration depth of the ground-engaging tool ([0043] s.4, controller may be configured to initiate adjustment of the penetration depth(s) of one or more ground-engaging tools and is construed as initiating a control action).
Claim 16 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 9 above, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
______________________________
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrari et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0404830 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ferrari, in view of Ott et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0035748 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ott, and Anderson et al. (US Pat. No. 4,108,249 A), hereinafter referred to as Anderson.
Regarding claim 17, Ferrari, as modified by Ott, discloses:
An agricultural implement, comprising:
a frame ([0019] s.1, implement may contain a frame);
a ground-engaging tool supported by the frame and configured to be moved through soil of the field as the agricultural implement travels across the field (see claim 1);
a radar sensor configured to generate data indicative of a flow of the soil in a portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving (see claim 1); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the radar sensor, the computing system configured to:
generate a representation of the flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving based on the received data from the radar sensor (see claim 1);
remove at least one of the ground-engaging tool or the wheel of the agricultural implement from the generated representation such that a modified representation of the flow of the soil in the portion of the field through which the ground-engaging tool is moving is created (see claim 1); and
determine when the ground-engaging tool is plugged based on the modified representation (see claim 1); and
initiate a control action when determined that the ground-engaging tool is plugged ([0043] s.1, the controller may be configured to initiate one or more control actions when it is determined that the ground-engaging tool(s) of the implement is plugged).
but Ferrari, as modified by Ott, does not explicitly disclose:
a wheel supporting the frame and configured to allow movement of the agricultural implement across a field.
However, Anderson teaches in column 1 lines 19-20 of an agricultural implement that has wheels. Column 1 line 37 where the implement is utilized in tilling the ground.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the agricultural implement control system and method of Ferrari, by incorporating the wheel supported frame teachings of Anderson, such that the combination would provide a predictable result of supporting the frame of the agricultural implement while providing the mobility necessary for tilling the ground.
Claim 18 recites an agricultural implement having substantially the same features of claim 2 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 19 recites an agricultural implement having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and incorporate the limitations into independent claim 17. Therefore, claim 20 is no longer being considered.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Stanhope (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0284886 A1) is directed towards a system for disregarding obscured sensor data during the performance of an agricultural operation may include a sensor provided in operative association with an agricultural machine.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights