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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stoller et al. (Pub. No.: 2021/0190754; hereinafter Stoller).
Regarding independent claim 1, Stoller discloses an agricultural machine (1202), comprising:
a frame;
a plurality of wheels coupled to the frame (as seen in Fig. 7);
a transceiver-based sensor (100, See Abstract where it discloses the “sensor comprises at least one radar transmitter”) supported on the frame, the transceiver-based sensor (100) configured to generate surface profile data indicative of a surface profile of a portion of a field across which the agricultural machine is traveling (See para. [0035] where it discloses the sensor 100 generates a signal or image representative of the soil densities or other soil characteristics throughout a soil region of interest, the sensor(s) may be mounted to a planter row unit to generate data as the planter traverses the field); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the transceiver-based sensor (100), the computing system:
identifies a wheel depression within the portion of the field based on the surface profile data generated by the transceiver-based sensor (See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “seed trench” generally corresponds to the claimed “wheel depression” since the seed trench is a depression made into the ground surface by opening wheels 222 as disclosed in para. [0057]);
determines a depth of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “trench depth” generally corresponds to the claimed “depth of the identified wheel depression”);
determines a depth of a compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the determined depth of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0067] where it discloses “the area traversed by the gauge wheels (or other wheels) of the planter (or tractor or other implement vehicle) may be analyzed to determine a depth and/or soil density of a compaction layer beneath the wheels”); and
controls an operating parameter of the agricultural machine based on the determined depth of the compaction layer (See para. [0070] and Fig. 9 where at step 520 control decisions are made, then in step 522 that involve actuating actuators corresponding to control decisions).
Regarding claim 4, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claims 1, and also discloses a ground-engaging tool (222) configured to penetrate into soil within the field to a penetration depth (as disclosed in first sentence of para. [0057]), wherein the operating parameter comprises the penetration depth of the ground-engaging tool (the operating parameter generally corresponds to actuating actuators, See para. [0070] where it discloses actuating actuator 234, See para. [0066] where it discloses actuating the depth adjustment actuator 234 to increase the downforce will increase the trench depth).
Regarding claim 5, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 1, and also discloses wherein the transceiver-based sensor (100) has a field of view directed forward of the agricultural machine relative to a direction of travel of the agricultural machine (as seen in Fig. 7, also See para. [0035] where it discloses the sensor 100 generates a signal or image representative of the soil densities or other soil characteristics throughout a soil region of interest, the sensor(s) may be mounted to a planter row unit to generate data as the planter traverses the field).
Regarding independent claim 6, Stoller discloses a system for determining compaction layer depth during agricultural machine operation, the system comprising:
a transceiver-based sensor (100, See Abstract where it discloses the “sensor comprises at least one radar transmitter”) supported on the frame, the transceiver-based sensor (100) configured to generate surface profile data indicative of a surface profile of a portion of a field across which the agricultural machine is traveling (See para. [0035] where it discloses the sensor 100 generates a signal or image representative of the soil densities or other soil characteristics throughout a soil region of interest, the sensor(s) may be mounted to a planter row unit to generate data as the planter traverses the field); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the transceiver-based sensor (100), the computing system:
identifies a wheel depression within the portion of the field based on the surface profile data generated by the transceiver-based sensor (See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “seed trench” generally corresponds to the claimed “wheel depression” since the seed trench is a depression made into the ground surface by opening wheels 222 as disclosed in para. [0057])
determines a depth of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “trench depth” generally corresponds to the claimed “depth of the identified wheel depression”);
determines a depth of a compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the determined depth of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0067] where it discloses “the area traversed by the gauge wheels (or other wheels) of the planter (or tractor or other implement vehicle) may be analyzed to determine a depth and/or soil density of a compaction layer beneath the wheels”).
Regarding claim 9, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 6, and also discloses wherein, when identifying the wheel depression, the computing system identifies the wheel depression within the portion of the field within the data generated by the transceiver-based sensor based on shape (See para. [0071] where it discloses “the characterized image may then be used to identify and define features such as the trench shape”).
Regarding claim 10, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 6, and also discloses wherein the computing system controls an operating parameter of the agricultural machine based on the determined depth of the compaction layer (See para. [0070] and Fig. 9 where at step 520 control decisions are made, then in step 522 that involve actuating actuators corresponding to control decisions).
Regarding claim 11, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 6, and also discloses wherein the computing system determines a width of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0073] where it discloses “defining the area of the trench cross-section” i.e., defining the height and width of the trench); and controls the operating parameter of the agricultural machine based on the determined width of the identified wheel depression and the determined depth of the compaction layer (the width determination disclosed in para. [0073] is done in step 516 as depicted in Fig. 9 and disclosed in para. [0071], further See Fig. 9 where step 516 is before 522 which generally corresponds to the control parameter).
Regarding claim 12, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 11, and also discloses a ground-engaging tool (222) configured to penetrate into soil within the field to a penetration depth (as disclosed in first sentence of para. [0057]), wherein the operating parameter comprises the penetration depth of the ground-engaging tool (the operating parameter generally corresponds to actuating actuators, See para. [0070] where it discloses actuating actuator 234, See para. [0066] where it discloses actuating the depth adjustment actuator 234 to increase the downforce will increase the trench depth).
Regarding claim 13, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 11, and also discloses compares the determined depth of the compaction layer to a predetermined range (See step 518 in Fig. 9 which states “compare characterized work layer image to thresholds”); and initiate an adjustment to the penetration depth of the ground-engaging tool when determined depth of the compaction layer falls outside of the predetermined range (See para. [0066] where it discloses if the seed depth is less than a predetermined threshold, a signal is generated to acuate depth adjustment member 234 to increase trench depth, and if the seed depth is more than the predetermined threshold, a signal is generated to actuate the depth adjustment actuator to decrease trench depth, note that the seed depth generally corresponds to the trench depth since seeds are disposed at the bottom of the trench as seen in Figs. 2A-2C).
Regarding independent claim 16, Stoller discloses a method for determining compaction layer depth during agricultural machine operation, the method comprising:
receiving, with a computing system, surface profile data indicative of a portion of a field across which the agricultural machine is traveling (See para. [0035] where it discloses the sensor 100 generates a signal or image representative of the soil densities or other soil characteristics throughout a soil region of interest, the sensor(s) may be mounted to a planter row unit to generate data as the planter traverses the field);
identifying, with the computing system, a wheel depression within the portion of the field based on the received surface profile data (See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “seed trench” generally corresponds to the claimed “wheel depression” since the seed trench is a depression made into the ground surface by opening wheels 222 as disclosed in para. [0057]),
determining, with the computing system, a depth of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “trench depth” generally corresponds to the claimed “depth of the identified wheel depression”);
determining, with the computing system, a depth of a compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the determined depth of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0067] where it discloses “the area traversed by the gauge wheels (or other wheels) of the planter (or tractor or other implement vehicle) may be analyzed to determine a depth and/or soil density of a compaction layer beneath the wheels”); and
controlling, with the computing system, an operating parameter of the agricultural machine based on the determined depth of the compaction layer (See para. [0070] and Fig. 9 where at step 520 control decisions are made, then in step 522 that involve actuating actuators corresponding to control decisions).
Regarding claim 19, Stoller discloses the method of claim 16, and also discloses wherein, identifying the wheel depression comprises identifying with the computing system, the wheel depression within the portion of the field within the data generated by the transceiver-based sensor based on shape (See para. [0071] where it discloses “the characterized image may then be used to identify and define features such as the trench shape”).
Regarding claim 20 Stoller discloses the method of claim 16, and also discloses determining, with the computing system, a width of the identified wheel depression (See para. [0073] where it discloses “defining the area of the trench cross-section” i.e., defining the height and width of the trench); and controlling, with the computing system, the operating parameter of the agricultural machine based on the determined width of the identified wheel depression and the determined depth of the compaction layer (the width determination disclosed in para. [0073] is done in step 516 as depicted in Fig. 9 and disclosed in para. [0071], further See Fig. 9 where step 516 is before 522 which generally corresponds to the control parameter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller in view of McDonald (Pub. No.: 2020/0000006).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claims 1 and 6 respectively, and also discloses wherein the computing system receives an input indicative of a texture of soil present within the portion of the field (See para. [0077]-[0079] where it discloses soil sensing information can be obtained via a sensor to measure a soil density, and “a soil density change at a certain depth can be combined with a sensed moisture level at this depth or combined with soil type or texture”).
However, Stoller fails to disclose the computing system determines the depth of the compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the texture of the soil and the determined depth of the identified wheel depression.
McDonald discloses a compaction mitigation system that operates by determining a compaction map of the work area having compaction data relating to compact soil area which includes “one or more paths traveled by a tractor, harvester, grain cart, and/or other vehicle or work tool resulting in the store or otherwise determined high soil compaction data” (as disclosed in para. [0022]).
More specifically, McDonald teaches in Fig. 5 and corresponding disclosure in para. [0029]-[0030] that the compaction map is determined by soil data collected by soil moisture sensors like moisture and density (i.e., soil texture). A sample compaction map of the compaction below a wheel is depicted in Fig. 5, and para. [0029] specifically discloses how the different textures of soil (hard/dry, moderate soil density, and wet/relatively loose soil) affect the compaction depth determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the computing system of Stoller to determine the compaction layer depth based on the texture of soil as disclosed by McDonald, in order to provide additional means of determining the compaction layer thereby increasing the accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claims 1 and 6 respectively, and also discloses a soil moisture sensor configured to generate soil moisture data indicative of a soil moisture content of the portion of the field (See para. [0079] where it discloses the “sensed moisture level” to process data) wherein computing system determines the soil moisture content of the portion of the field based on the soil moisture data generated by the soil moisture sensor (See para. [0108]).
However, Stoller fails to disclose the computing system determines the depth of the compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the determined soil moisture content and the determined depth of the identified wheel depression.
McDonald discloses a compaction mitigation system that operates by determining a compaction map of the work area having compaction data relating to compact soil area which includes “one or more paths traveled by a tractor, harvester, grain cart, and/or other vehicle or work tool resulting in the store or otherwise determined high soil compaction data” (as disclosed in para. [0022]). More specifically, McDonald teaches in Fig. 5 and corresponding disclosure in para. [0029]-[0030] that the compaction map is determined by soil data collected by soil moisture sensors like moisture and density (i.e., soil texture). A sample compaction map of the compaction below a wheel is depicted in Fig. 5, and para. [0029] specifically discloses how the different textures of soil (hard/dry, moderate soil density, and wet/relatively loose soil) affect the compaction depth determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the computing system of Stoller to determine the compaction layer depth based on the texture of soil as disclosed by McDonald, in order to provide additional means of determining the compaction layer thereby increasing the accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claim 17, Stoller discloses the method of claim 16, and also discloses receiving, with the computing system, an input indicative of a texture of soil present within the portion of the field (See para. [0077]-[0079] where it discloses soil sensing information can be obtained via a sensor to measure a soil density, and “a soil density change at a certain depth can be combined with a sensed moisture level at this depth or combined with soil type or texture”).
However, Stoller fails to disclose determining, with the computing system, the depth of the compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the texture of the soil and the determined depth of the identified wheel depression.
McDonald discloses a compaction mitigation system that operates by determining a compaction map of the work area having compaction data relating to compact soil area which includes “one or more paths traveled by a tractor, harvester, grain cart, and/or other vehicle or work tool resulting in the store or otherwise determined high soil compaction data” (as disclosed in para. [0022]).
More specifically, McDonald teaches in Fig. 5 and corresponding disclosure in para. [0029]-[0030] that the compaction map is determined by soil data collected by soil moisture sensors like moisture and density (i.e., soil texture). A sample compaction map of the compaction below a wheel is depicted in Fig. 5, and para. [0029] specifically discloses how the different textures of soil (hard/dry, moderate soil density, and wet/relatively loose soil) affect the compaction depth determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the computing system of Stoller to determine the compaction layer depth based on the texture of soil as disclosed by McDonald, in order to provide additional means of determining the compaction layer thereby increasing the accuracy of the determination.
25. Regarding claim 18, Stoller discloses the method of claim 16, and also discloses receiving, with the computing system, soil moisture data indicative of a soil moisture content of the portion of the field (See para. [0079] where it discloses the “sensed moisture level” to process data); and determining, with the computing system, the soil moisture content of the portion of the field based on the soil moisture data generated by the soil moisture data (See para. [0108]).
However, Stoller fails to disclose determining, with the computing system, the depth of the compaction layer beneath the identified wheel depression based on the determined soil moisture content and the determined depth of the identified wheel depression.
McDonald discloses a compaction mitigation system that operates by determining a compaction map of the work area having compaction data relating to compact soil area which includes “one or more paths traveled by a tractor, harvester, grain cart, and/or other vehicle or work tool resulting in the store or otherwise determined high soil compaction data” (as disclosed in para. [0022]). More specifically, McDonald teaches in Fig. 5 and corresponding disclosure in para. [0029]-[0030] that the compaction map is determined by soil data collected by soil moisture sensors like moisture and density (i.e., soil texture). A sample compaction map of the compaction below a wheel is depicted in Fig. 5, and para. [0029] specifically discloses how the different textures of soil (hard/dry, moderate soil density, and wet/relatively loose soil) affect the compaction depth determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the computing system of Stoller to determine the compaction layer depth based on the texture of soil as disclosed by McDonald, in order to provide additional means of determining the compaction layer thereby increasing the accuracy of the determination.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller in view of Pasquier (Pub. No.: 2015/0373902).
Regarding claim 14, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 12, and also discloses a ground-engaging tool (222) configured to penetrate into soil within the field to a penetration depth (as disclosed in first sentence of para. [0057]). However, Stoller fails to specifically disclose that the ground-engaging tool specifically comprises a shank as required by the claim. Pasquier discloses a strip tilling unit with a control system arranged to adjust the position of shank (15) of each gang (13) with respect to the support frame (19) via a positioning system (30) that is arranged to detect soil type, level of compaction, and notify the control system if any of the shanks (15) are along a tire track, so that the control system can automatically adjust the position of each shank for proper tilling depth (See para. [0071]-[0072]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ground-engaging tool of Stoller, to specifically be the shank ground-engaging tool of Pasquier, as selecting the ground-engaging tool of an agricultural machine is well within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Stoller. Further, such a modification merely constitutes the substitution of a known ground-engaging tool for a specific type of ground-engaging tool to produce the predictable result of desired agricultural operation (See MPEP 2143, Subsection 1, B).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller.
Regarding claim 15, Stoller discloses the agricultural machine of claim 6, and also discloses “the sensor is one of radar, electroconductivity, electromagnetic, and a force probe” (See para. [0122]). Stoller fails to disclose that the sensor is specifically a LiDAR sensor as claimed. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensor type of Stoller to specifically be a LiDAR sensor, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Stoller. Further, there do not appear to be any details of criticality regarding the specific usage of a LiDAR sensor and para. [0029] of the instant disclosure states “the transceiver-based sensor may be configured as any other suitable device(s) for detecting reflection of an emitted signal off of the field surface, such as a radar sensor(s), a time-of-flight camera(s), a scanning ultrasonic sensor(s), etc.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 16 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant states on pg. 7 that “the seed trench and a wheel depression are completely different.” However, as detailed above and in the previous rejection, “See para. [0039] where it discloses the work layer images generated by the sensor 100 show various characteristics of the seed trench including the trench depth, note that the disclosed “seed trench” generally corresponds to the claimed “wheel depression” since the seed trench is a depression made into the ground surface by opening wheels 222 as disclosed in para. [0057].”
Additionally, para. [0043] of Applicant’s disclosure states that “A wheel depression, in turn, is any cavity, track, rut, divot, depression, low spot, or other abnormality in the surface of profile a field that is formed by a wheel or a track assembly of a vehicle, implement, or other piece of equipment that has traversed the field.” Accordingly, interpreting the seed trench of Stoller as the claimed wheel depression is reasonable and in line with the instant specification as the seed trench is made by a wheel pushing (i.e., depressing) into the ground surface. It is further noted that there does not appear to be specific discussion presented by Applicant as to how the claims distinguish over the interpretation resulting from previously cited paragraphs of Stoller.
Additionally, Applicant states that “there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Stoller of using the depth of the seed trench to determine the depth of the compaction layer.” However, as detailed above and in the previous rejection, para. [0067] states “the area traversed by the gauge wheels (or other wheels) of the planter (or tractor or other implement vehicle) may be analyzed to determine a depth and/or soil density of a compaction layer beneath the wheels.” It is further noted that there does not appear to be any specific discussion presented by Applicant as to how the claims distinguish over the previously cited paragraph of Stoller.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Audrey L Lusk whose telephone number is (571)272-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JAMIE L MCGOWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights