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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 13, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 5, 15, and 20 are canceled.
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 22 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicates of claims 7 and 8. When the claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14, 16-18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (US 20170112043 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Nair, in view of Long et al. (US 20200260632 A1), herein after will be referred to as Long.
Regarding Claim 1, Nair teaches an agricultural system comprising (A tractor and tillage implement used for field operations; [0025]):
an implement including a frame assembly (A tillage implement having a structural frame assembly; [0026]);
one or more ground-engaging tools operably supported by the frame assembly (A set of ground-engaging tools coupled to the frame; [0027]);
an implement actuator operably coupled with the frame assembly and configured to alter a position of one or more frame members of the frame assembly relative to a ground surface (Hydraulic cylinders are actuated to raise or lower the frame relative to the field; [0029]); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the implement 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 (A controller with processors/memory connected to control the implement actuator; [0028]):
receive data indicative of residue size (The system characterizes the residue by determining dimensional data; [0016]);
receive data indicative of a size distribution of residue (The control system determines the percent coverage and characteristic size of residue over a given area of field; [0017] [0018]);
determine a…implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size (The controller adjust the overall level of the implement based from lookup tables; [0015] [0091]).
Nair does not explicitly teach determine a defined implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size to achieve a target seedbed levelness, wherein the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly; and determine an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness.
However, Long discloses a system for monitoring the frame levelness of an agricultural implement using sensors to capture positions that correspond to the seedbed tool relative to the implement frame. Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). These teaching are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determine a defined implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size to achieve a target seedbed levelness, wherein the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly” because the frame levelness is defined by both the pitch and roll of the frame. Long supplies the claimed “defined implement levelness”. Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determine an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness” because the controller computes the actuator positions that bring the frame to the defined pitch/roll levelness. The Applicant’s specification defines the implement actuator model as the logic setting the actuator positions that place the frame at the defined implement levelness (Applicant’s Specification [0027]). The predetermined differential threshold based on the pitch and roll that results in “poor seedbed quality” defines a levelness range set by the seedbed condition.
Nair and Long are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for agricultural implements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair’s implement leveling system to incorporate the teachings of the implement levelness defined by the pitch and roll of the frame to a targeted seedbed levelness within a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame, explicitly detailed by Long “the ground-engaging tools mounted on the frame may penetrate the ground to differing depths, thereby resulting in an uneven seedbed. Such poor seedbed conditions can result in a subsequent loss in the crop yield, such as due to poor germination and/or non-uniform plant stands.” ([0003]). This modification would predictably result in an agricultural implement leveling system that uses Nair’s residue size and size distribution measurements to determine a defined implement levelness, the pitch and roll of the frame, to achieve a target seedbed levelness. See MPEP § 2143, Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, Nair teaches the residue implement leveling and Long teaches the implement levelness for seedbed quality is the frame’s pitch and roll controlled within a predetermined threshold.
Regarding Claim 3, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches the implement actuator model is further based at least partially on the size distribution of the residue (A movement data store with lookup tables that determine hydraulic cylinder movements from the residue coverage based on the residue characteristics; [0091] [0017] ).
Regarding Claim 4, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches field sensor configured to capture the data indicative of residue size (Camera assemblies mounted on the implement/tractor to capture images to be analyzed for residue coverage and size; [0018] [0020] [0043]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair does not explicitly teach the defined levelness range is based at least partially on a seedbed levelness for a field.
However, Long teaches that the predetermined differential threshold is a differential between the first and second detection assemblies to measure an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality where the threshold is selected so that the controller ignores minor differences ([0052]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the predetermined differential threshold is used to determine the levelness seedbed condition by allowing how much pitch and roll is allowed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nair to incorporate the teachings of the predetermined differential threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to achieve a quality seedbed levelness and keep the controller from adjusting the frame for minor differential frame pitch and roll, as explicitly stated by Long “Such minor amounts of pitch and/or roll may be expected and are generally not indicative of poor seedbed quality or the need to adjust an operating parameter(s) of the implement 10 and/or the vehicle 202.” ([0052]). This modification would predictably result in a leveling controller that actuates only when the seedbed passes the predetermined differential threshold for a defined levelness range.
Regarding Claim 9, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches a location device, wherein at least one of the residue size or the size distribution of the residue is based at least partially on a position of the implement within a field, as determined by the location device (A GPS device to track and monitor residue data and location information; [0042]), and a correlated residue map (A map correlated with residue coverage data; [0027] [0070]).
Regarding Claim 10, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches a position sensor operably coupled with the implement actuator (Various sensors to sense relative positions in communication with the hydraulic cylinders; [0041]); the position sensor is configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the frame assembly relative to the ground (The sensors detect relative depth with respect to the field; [0041]).
Regarding Claim 11, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches a display operably coupled with the computing system (A human-machine interface with a touchscreen interface overlaid on a display; [0061]), the computing system configured to illustrate information related to the residue size (The residue user interface indicates the value corresponding to coverage and value; [0071] [0016]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches an implement sensor configured to detect one or more implement settings associated with the implement (Various sensors, such as pressure transducers, potentiometers, and rotational-sensors, that detect operational parameters like relative depth, angle, and down-pressure; [0041]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nair teaches a method for operating an agricultural system (Method of operating the tillage implement via its controller; [0026] [0029]), the method comprising:
receiving, from one or more field sensors, data indicative of residue size (Receiving data from camera sensors that characterizes the residue by its size; [0016] [0018] [0043]);
determining, with a computing system, a…implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size (The controller adjust the overall level of the implement based from lookup tables; [0015] [0091]).
Nair does not explicitly teach determining, with a computing system, a defined implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size to achieve a target seedbed levelness, wherein the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly; and determining, with a computing system, an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness.
However, Long discloses a system for monitoring the frame levelness of an agricultural implement using sensors to capture positions that correspond to the seedbed tool relative to the implement frame. Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). These teaching are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determining, with a computing system, a defined implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size to achieve a target seedbed levelness, wherein the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly” because the frame levelness is defined by both the pitch and roll of the frame. Long supplies the claimed “defined implement levelness”. Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determining, with a computing system, an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness.” because the controller computes the actuator positions that bring the frame to the defined pitch/roll levelness. The Applicant’s specification defines the implement actuator model as the logic setting the actuator positions that place the frame at the defined implement levelness (Applicant’s Specification [0027]). The predetermined differential threshold based on the pitch and roll that results in “poor seedbed quality” defines a levelness range set by the seedbed condition.
Nair and Long are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of control systems for agricultural implements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair’s implement leveling system to incorporate the teachings of the implement levelness defined by the pitch and roll of the frame to a targeted seedbed levelness within a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame, explicitly detailed by Long “the ground-engaging tools mounted on the frame may penetrate the ground to differing depths, thereby resulting in an uneven seedbed. Such poor seedbed conditions can result in a subsequent loss in the crop yield, such as due to poor germination and/or non-uniform plant stands.” ([0003]). This modification would predictably result in an agricultural implement leveling system that uses Nair’s residue size and size distribution measurements to determine a defined implement levelness, the pitch and roll of the frame, to achieve a target seedbed levelness. See MPEP § 2143, Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, Nair teaches the residue implement leveling and Long teaches the implement levelness for seedbed quality is the frame’s pitch and roll controlled within a predetermined threshold.
Regarding Claim 14, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 13. Nair further teaches receiving, from one or more field sensors, data indicative of a size distribution of the residue (The control system determines the percent coverage and characteristic size of residue over a given area of field; [0017] [0018]), wherein the implement levelness is based at least partially on the residue size distribution (The controller system utilizes the determined percentage coverage and characteristic size to guide the operation; [0015] [0018]).
Regarding Claim 16, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 13. Nair further teaches generating, with the computing system, instructions to actuate an implement actuator to place a frame assembly in the implement actuator model (The control device generates control signals to drive the hydraulic cylinders to move the implement components to a desired orientation; [0041] [0093]).
Regarding Claim 17, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 13. Nair further teaches generating, with the computing system, a graphic related to the residue size on a display (The residue user interface indicates the value corresponding to coverage and value on a display; [0071] [0016]).
Regarding Claim 18, Nair teaches an agricultural system comprising (A tractor and tillage implement used for field operations; [0025]):
a frame assembly (A tillage implement having a structural frame assembly; [0026]);
one or more ground-engaging tools operably supported by the frame assembly (A set of ground-engaging tools coupled to the frame; [0027]);
an implement actuator operably coupled with the frame assembly and configured to alter a position of one or more frame members of the frame assembly relative to a ground surface (Hydraulic cylinders are actuated to raise or lower the frame relative to the field; [0029]); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the implement 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 (A controller with processors/memory connected to control the implement actuator; [0028]):
receive data indicative of a size distribution of residue (The system characterizes the residue by determining dimensional data; [0016]);
determine a…implement levelness based at least partially on the size distribution of the residue to achieve a target seedbed levelness (The residue is characterized by its size distribution and adjusts the implement level in response to the characterized residue; [0015] [0017] [0109]).
Nair does not explicitly teach determine a defined implement levelness…to achieve a target seedbed levelness, wherein the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly; and determine an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness.
However, Long discloses a system for monitoring the frame levelness of an agricultural implement using sensors to capture positions that correspond to the seedbed tool relative to the implement frame. Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). These teaching are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determine a defined implement levelness…to achieve a target seedbed levelness, wherein the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly” because the frame levelness is defined by both the pitch and roll of the frame. Long supplies the claimed “defined implement levelness”. Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “determine an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness” because the controller computes the actuator positions that bring the frame to the defined pitch/roll levelness. The Applicant’s specification defines the implement actuator model as the logic setting the actuator positions that place the frame at the defined implement levelness (Applicant’s Specification [0027]). The predetermined differential threshold based on the pitch and roll that results in “poor seedbed quality” defines a levelness range set by the seedbed condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair’s implement leveling system to incorporate the teachings of the implement levelness defined by the pitch and roll of the frame to a targeted seedbed levelness within a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame, explicitly detailed by Long “the ground-engaging tools mounted on the frame may penetrate the ground to differing depths, thereby resulting in an uneven seedbed. Such poor seedbed conditions can result in a subsequent loss in the crop yield, such as due to poor germination and/or non-uniform plant stands.” ([0003]). This modification would predictably result in an agricultural implement leveling system that uses Nair’s residue size and size distribution measurements to determine a defined implement levelness, the pitch and roll of the frame, to achieve a target seedbed levelness. See MPEP § 2143, Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, Nair teaches the residue implement leveling and Long teaches the implement levelness for seedbed quality is the frame’s pitch and roll controlled within a predetermined threshold.
Regarding Claim 19, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 18. Nair further teaches a field sensor configured to capture the data indicative of residue size (Camera assemblies mounted on the implement/tractor to capture images to be analyzed for residue coverage and size; [0018] [0020] [0021]).
Regarding Claim 23, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair further teaches a position sensor operably coupled with the implement actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the frame assembly relative to the ground (A depth control device mounted to the frame and in communication with hydraulic cylinders that captures position data relative depth and angle of the field; [0041]),
wherein the computing system is further configured to modify the implement actuator model based on feedback from the position sensor (The residue control module uses the position sensed by the depth control device when determining the movement value to control the cylinder movement. The residue control module receives, as an input, the depth control device’s control data. The movement value provided by lookup tables is determined from the depth control device’s sensor data and the movement value changes as the sensor data changes. The residue control module revises the cylinder movement based on the sensor feedback; [0091-0092]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair in view of Long, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20120283920 A1), herein after will be referred to as Kim.
Regarding Claim 7, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range.
However, Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range” because the controller determines when the frame to be out of level and adjusts the frame to ensure a levelness within the threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nair to incorporate the teachings of the control logic that correlates the sensed frame conditions to the actuator positions against a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame. This modification would predictably result in an implement actuator model that controls the frame positions that are referenced from the levelness range.
Nair and Long does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is set to a maximum offset angle when the implement actuator model exceeds an upper threshold of the defined levelness range.
However, Kim discloses a leveling control system for heavy equipment by calculating the correction angle and setting the target to the maximum allowable upper limit when the desired angle exceeds that limit ([0083] [0086]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system detects when a value is outside the defined range and responds by setting the output command to the maximum limit of that range.
Nair, Long, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of controls systems and leveling a frame using actuators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair and Long to incorporate the teachings of setting the target to the maximum allowable upper limit twist angle range when the correction exceeds the upper threshold as taught by Kim based on the motivation to keep the correction within the actuator’s allowable range so the actuator is not damaged. Kim states “In order to mitigate such collision or impact and to prevent the damage of the cylinder at the end of the corresponding actuator, the second control signal for operating the actuator at low speed is generated.” [0103]. This modification would predictably result in a system that sets the output signal to the maximum allowable offset angle when the correction exceeds the upper threshold of the defined levelness range, preventing damage to Nair’s hydraulic cylinders ([0029]) and maintaining a safe and predictable implement operation.
Regarding Claim 8, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range.
However, Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range” because the controller determines when the frame to be out of level and adjusts the frame to ensure a levelness within the threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nair to incorporate the teachings of the control logic that correlates the sensed frame conditions to the actuator positions against a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame. This modification would predictably result in an implement actuator model that controls the frame positions that are referenced from the levelness range.
Nair and Long does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is set to a minimum offset angle when the implement actuator model is less than a lower threshold of the defined levelness range.
However, Kim discloses a leveling control system for heavy equipment by calculating the correction angle and setting the target to the maximum allowable lower limit when the desired angle exceeds that limit ([0083] [0085]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system detects when a value is below the defined range and responds by setting the output command to the minimum lower limit of that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair and Long to incorporate the teachings of setting the maximum lower limit offset angle when the angle limit is exceeded as taught by Kim based on the motivation to improve the reliability of the system by allowing the system to handle out of range conditions. This provides the benefit of maximizing the correction range of the implement while safely protecting the mechanical components of the system.
Regarding Claim 21, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range.
However, Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range” because the controller determines when the frame to be out of level and adjusts the frame to ensure a levelness within the threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nair to incorporate the teachings of the control logic that correlates the sensed frame conditions to the actuator positions against a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame. This modification would predictably result in an implement actuator model that controls the frame positions that are referenced from the levelness range.
Nair and Long does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is set to a maximum offset angle when the implement actuator model exceeds an upper threshold of the defined levelness range.
However, Kim discloses a leveling control system for heavy equipment by calculating the correction angle and setting the target to the maximum allowable upper limit when the desired angle exceeds that limit ([0083] [0086]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system detects when a value is outside the defined range and responds by setting the output command to the maximum limit of that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair and Long to incorporate the teachings of setting the target to the maximum allowable upper limit twist angle range when the correction exceeds the upper threshold as taught by Kim based on the motivation to keep the correction within the actuator’s allowable range so the actuator is not damaged. Kim states “In order to mitigate such collision or impact and to prevent the damage of the cylinder at the end of the corresponding actuator, the second control signal for operating the actuator at low speed is generated.” [0103]. This modification would predictably result in a system that sets the output signal to the maximum allowable offset angle when the correction exceeds the upper threshold of the defined levelness range, preventing damage to Nair’s hydraulic cylinders ([0029]) and maintaining a safe and predictable implement operation.
Regarding Claim 22, Nair and Long remains as applied above in claim 1. Nair does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range.
However, Long teaches that the implement levelness is defined by the roll and pitch of the frame ([0025]) and is directed to creating a level and uniform layer of tilted soil across the field for achieving proper seedbed levelness ([0003]). Long further teaches that the controller executes stored control logic of look-up tables, mathematical formula, and/or algorithms within its memory that correlates the sensed framed condition to the actuator positions ([0049]) and determines when the frame to be out of level when a predetermined differential threshold is exceeded ([0050]). The wheel and frame are adjusted to their positions to ensure that the frame is leveled ([0058]). The predetermined determined differential threshold is set at an amount of frame pitch and roll that results in poor seedbed quality ([0052]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the implement actuator model is correlated with the defined levelness range” because the controller determines when the frame to be out of level and adjusts the frame to ensure a levelness within the threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nair to incorporate the teachings of the control logic that correlates the sensed frame conditions to the actuator positions against a predetermined threshold as taught by Long based on the motivation to produce a uniformed level seedbed and avoid loss in the crop yield caused by an out of level frame. This modification would predictably result in an implement actuator model that controls the frame positions that are referenced from the levelness range.
Nair and Long does not explicitly teach the implement actuator model is set to a minimum offset angle when the implement actuator model is less than a lower threshold of the defined levelness range.
However, Kim discloses a leveling control system for heavy equipment by calculating the correction angle and setting the target to the maximum allowable lower limit when the desired angle exceeds that limit ([0083] [0085]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the control system detects when a value is below the defined range and responds by setting the output command to the minimum lower limit of that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nair and Long to incorporate the teachings of setting the maximum lower limit offset angle when the angle limit is exceeded as taught by Kim based on the motivation to improve the reliability of the system by allowing the system to handle out of range conditions. This provides the benefit of maximizing the correction range of the implement while safely protecting the mechanical components of the system.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Casper (US 20160134844 A1)
Kovach (US 20210298217 A1)
Kovach (US 20180279541 A1)
Zemenchik (US 20200107490 A1)
Czapka (US 20180228075 A1)
Czapka (US 20170359941 A1)
Schoeny (US 20200107494 A1)
Shull (US 20090326768 A1)
Ellaboudy (US 20210000006 A1)
Barrick (US 20180303022 A1)
Smith (US 20210127547 A1)
Barrick (US 20210120726 A1)
Andrejuk (US 20210333259 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7 through 15, filed 03/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13, and 18 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Nair and Sporrer fail to disclose or suggest all claimed elements. Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. The new ground of rejection is made based on the combination of Nair et al. (US 20170112043 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 20200260632 A1). Long defines the levelness in terms of frame pitch and roll ([0025]) and ties the frame pitch and roll to the seedbed quality through a predetermined differential threshold ([0052]) for the claimed “the defined implement levelness defines a roll and a pitch of the frame assembly” and “to achieve a target seedbed levelness”. Once the threshold is exceeded the controller treats the frame as out-of-level ([0050]), where the threshold defines a permissible pitch and roll by the seedbed condition for the claimed “defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness”. Furthermore, Long discloses a stored look-up table, mathematical formula, and/or algorithm that correlates the received data to the positions ([0049]) and adjusts the actuator positions in a manner that levels the frame ([0058]) for the claimed “determine an implement actuator model based at least partially on the defined implement levelness and a defined levelness range correlated to the target seedbed levelness”. Nair teaches receiving data indicative of residue size ([0016]) and a size distribution of the residue ([0017]) to determine a levelness from the characterized residue ([0109]) for the claimed “receive data indicative of residue size; receive data indicative of a size distribution of the residue; determine a defined implement levelness based at least partially on the residue size”.
Applicant argues that the first action’s motivation based on the combination of Nair and Sporrer directed to the amended claims are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Applicant argues that various features from the cited references -residue size characterization and generic leveling from Nair et al. and tolerance-based actuator logic from Sporrer or [REF2], improperly disregards the claimed invention set forth in amended claim 1 “as a whole” are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights