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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 01/17/2024 and 03/28/2025 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending.
Claim 18 is cancelled.
This Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 03/12/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220377967 to Thompson et. al. (“Thompson”) in view of US-20230189689-A1 to Brinker et. al. (“Brinker”).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches a method of controlling a planting machine (Thompson Claim 11) having a furrow opener (Thompson ref 72 “furrow-opening assembly”) and a gauge wheel (Thompson ref 44 “disc openers”) (Thompson Fig. 2 and [0034]), comprising:
receiving a set of target planting depth values corresponding to a field (Thompson [0057] “one or more parameter sensors 132 may include one or more imagers 134 configured to detect seedbed ridges, furrows, and/or any other suitable geographical or crop features present within the field. In this regard, the imager 134 may be provided in operative association with the implement 10 such that the imager 134 has a field of view or sensor detection range directed towards a portion of the field adjacent to the implement 10 and/or the row units 42. The imager 134 may correspond to any suitable sensing device configured to detect or capture image data or other vision-based data (e.g., point cloud data) associated with a seeding parameter within an associated field of view. For example, in several embodiments, the imager 134 may correspond to a suitable camera configured to capture images of the field, such as three-dimensional images of the soil surface or the plants present within the associated field of view.”) (Thompson Abstract “The computing system is further configured to receive an input associated with a target depth range of the row unit into an underlying field” and [0041] – [0042]);
detecting a location of the planting machine in the field (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 is informed of the current position of the implement 10 when generating the command signal.”);
automatically identifying a target planting depth value from the set of target planting depth values, based on the detected location (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 uses an algorithm, look-up table, chart, graph, and/or any other method to generate a force command that achieves the target depth and/or the target depth range based on the command signal and the detected seeding parameters. In instances in which a look-up table is implemented, the look-up table may include any array that replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation. For example, the look-up table may include an array of pre-calculated and indexed implement positions stored in static program storage. As such, the computing system 102 is informed of the current position of the implement 10 when generating the command signal.”);
and automatically generating a control signal to control a planting depth actuator to adjust a relationship between the furrow opener and the gauge wheel to control planting depth of the planting machine based on the identified target planting depth value (Thompson [0031] “each row unit 42 may include one or more disc openers 44 of an associated furrow-opening assembly 72 (FIG. 2), with each disc opener 44 configured to excavate a furrow or trench in soil to facilitate deposition of the flowable granular or particulate-type agricultural product 30. ” and [0044] “the computing system 102 may generate a command signal to move the implement 10 from an actual depth to the target depth and/or target depth range.”).
Thompson does not teach that the target planting depth values are georeferenced. However, Brink teaches receiving a set of georeferenced target planting depth values corresponding to a field (Brinker [0010] “Other types of useful maps can be generated as well, such as a map showing planting trench depths (based on data collected from monitoring operative rows of the implement). In some embodiments, the method also includes performing the aforementioned operations for multiple or all the operative rows of an implement.” and [0055] “At step 504, the method 500 continues with matching, by the computing system, the geographic location of the crop field with a location entity of a model for a row position map of the crop field. The location entity corresponds to the geographic location.” and [0056]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that the machine comprises receiving a set of georeferenced target planting depth values corresponding to a field. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Thompson further discloses accessing historic planting depth data (Thompson [0044]) and topography data corresponding to the historic planting depth data; and training a depth generation model based on the historic planting depth data and the corresponding topography data (Thompson [0045]). Brinker further teaches accessing historic yield data and topography data corresponding to the historic yield data; and training a depth generation model based on the historic yield data and the corresponding topography data (Brinker [0062] – [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Thompson as modified by Brinker to incorporate the teachings of Brinker such that the method further comprises accessing historic yield data and topography data corresponding to the historic yield data; and training a depth generation model based on the historic yield data and the corresponding topography data. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Brinker further discloses that each respective georeferenced target planting depth value, of the set of georeferenced target planting depth values, is georeferenced to a particular geographic location in the field (Brinker [0010] “Other types of useful maps can be generated as well, such as a map showing planting trench depths (based on data collected from monitoring operative rows of the implement). In some embodiments, the method also includes performing the aforementioned operations for multiple or all the operative rows of an implement.” and [0055] “At step 504, the method 500 continues with matching, by the computing system, the geographic location of the crop field with a location entity of a model for a row position map of the crop field. The location entity corresponds to the geographic location.” and [0056]-[0060]), and receiving a set of georeferenced target planting depth values comprises: obtaining topographic data corresponding to a field to be planted; running the depth generation model based on the topographic data corresponding to the field, to generate the set of georeferenced target planting depth values; and receiving the set of georeferenced target planting depth values from the depth generation model (Brinker Figs. 5-8 and [0062] – [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that each respective georeferenced target planting depth value, of the set of georeferenced target planting depth values, is georeferenced to a particular geographic location in the field, and receiving a set of georeferenced target planting depth values comprises: obtaining topographic data corresponding to a field to be planted; running the depth generation model based on the topographic data corresponding to the field, to generate the set of georeferenced target planting depth values; and receiving the set of georeferenced target planting depth values from the depth generation model. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Brinker further discloses that obtaining topographic data corresponding to the field to be planted comprises: dividing the field into discrete sections; identifying the topographic data corresponding to each discrete section; and generating a set of topographic zones corresponding to the field based on the topographic data corresponding to each discrete section (Brinker Fig. 8 and [0062] – [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that obtaining topographic data corresponding to the field to be planted comprises: dividing the field into discrete sections; identifying the topographic data corresponding to each discrete section; and generating a set of topographic zones corresponding to the field based on the topographic data corresponding to each discrete section. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Brinker further discloses that generating a set of topographic zones comprises: generating characterized field data by assigning, to each topographic zone, a topographic characteristic indicator indicative of a topography of the topographic zone (Brinker Fig. 8 and [0062] – [0066] and [0067] “The yield map 904 provides a crop yield percentage per sector and if the percentage is under 80%, a graphical warning is provided (e.g., see sectors 708 and 718 in FIGS. 9, 10 and 11). On the other hand, no graphical warning is provided in a sector when the percentage of the yield is equal to or greater than 80% (e.g., see sectors 706 and 716).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that generating a set of topographic zones comprises: generating characterized field data by assigning, to each topographic zone, a topographic characteristic indicator indicative of a topography of the topographic zone. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Brinker further discloses that generating characterized field data comprises: accessing georeferenced soil data for the field; and assigning a soil data identifier to each topographic zone based on the georeferenced soil data (Brinker Fig. 9 and [0067] “The row position map can also be combined with several types of agriculture informational maps such as a soil quality map, a soil moisture map, a soil pH-level map, or a crop or carbon density map.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that generating characterized field data comprises: accessing georeferenced soil data for the field; and assigning a soil data identifier to each topographic zone based on the georeferenced soil data. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Brinker further discloses that generating characterized field data comprises: accessing environmental data corresponding to the field; and generating the characterized field data based on the environmental data corresponding to the field (Brinker Fig. 8 and [0062] – [0066] and [0067] “The yield map 904 provides a crop yield percentage per sector and if the percentage is under 80%, a graphical warning is provided (e.g., see sectors 708 and 718 in FIGS. 9, 10 and 11). On the other hand, no graphical warning is provided in a sector when the percentage of the yield is equal to or greater than 80% (e.g., see sectors 706 and 716).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that generating characterized field data comprises: accessing environmental data corresponding to the field; and generating the characterized field data based on the environmental data corresponding to the field. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Thompson further discloses that automatically generating a control signal to control a planting depth actuator to control a planting depth of the planting machine based on the identified target planting depth value, comprises: identifying a current planting depth; comparing the current planting depth to the target planting depth value to obtain a comparison result; generating a depth adjustment value based on the comparison result; and generating the control signal based on the depth adjustment value (Thompson [0043] “In some instances, the computing system 102 may be configured to compare the target depth and/or the target depth range to an actual depth during the operation of the implement 10. When the actual seeding depth deviates from the target depth and/or the target depth range, the computing system 102 can generate remedial instructions to adjust the depth of the implement 10.”).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Thompson further discloses that identifying a current planting depth comprises: sensing the current planting depth with a furrow sensor (Thompson [0043] “One or more parameter sensors can measure each of the seeding parameters. In addition, one or more depth sensors can measure a depth of the seeds.”).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10. Thompson further discloses that identifying a current planting depth comprises: sensing a characteristic of the planting depth actuator; and estimating the current planting depth based on sensed characteristic of the planting depth actuator (Thompson [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Thompson further discloses that the planting machine comprises a plurality of row units with a planting depth actuator on each row unit to control a planting depth of each row unit (Thompson Fig. 2) and wherein automatically generating a control signal to control a planting depth actuator to control a planting depth of the planting machine based on the identified target planting depth value comprises: automatically generating a plurality of control signals to individually control the planting depth actuators on each row unit (Thompson Abstract and [0032], [0060], [0062], & [0094]).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson teaches a method of controlling a planting machine (Thompson Claim 11), the method comprising:
automatically identifying a target planting depth value from the set of target planting depth values (Thompson [0057] “one or more parameter sensors 132 may include one or more imagers 134 configured to detect seedbed ridges, furrows, and/or any other suitable geographical or crop features present within the field. In this regard, the imager 134 may be provided in operative association with the implement 10 such that the imager 134 has a field of view or sensor detection range directed towards a portion of the field adjacent to the implement 10 and/or the row units 42. The imager 134 may correspond to any suitable sensing device configured to detect or capture image data or other vision-based data (e.g., point cloud data) associated with a seeding parameter within an associated field of view. For example, in several embodiments, the imager 134 may correspond to a suitable camera configured to capture images of the field, such as three-dimensional images of the soil surface or the plants present within the associated field of view.”);
and automatically generating a control signal to control a planting depth of the planting machine based on the identified target planting depth value (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 may generate a command signal to move the implement 10 from an actual depth to the target depth and/or target depth range.”).
Thompson does not explicitly state that each respective georeferenced target planting depth value, of the set of georeferenced target planting depth values, is georeferenced to a particular geographic location in the field. However, Brinker discloses a set of georeferenced target planting depth values, and that each respective georeferenced target planting depth value, of the set of georeferenced target planting depth values, is georeferenced to a particular geographic location in the field (Brinker [0010] “Other types of useful maps can be generated as well, such as a map showing planting trench depths (based on data collected from monitoring operative rows of the implement). In some embodiments, the method also includes performing the aforementioned operations for multiple or all the operative rows of an implement.” and [0055] “At step 504, the method 500 continues with matching, by the computing system, the geographic location of the crop field with a location entity of a model for a row position map of the crop field. The location entity corresponds to the geographic location.” and [0056]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Brinker such that the method comprises a set of georeferenced target planting depth values and that each respective georeferenced target planting depth value, of the set of georeferenced target planting depth values, is georeferenced to a particular geographic location in the field. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 20, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of claim 19. Thompson further discloses detecting a location of the planting machine (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 is informed of the current position of the implement 10 when generating the command signal.”); and automatically identifying the target planting depth value from the set of georeferenced target planting depth values, based on the detected location (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 uses an algorithm, look-up table, chart, graph, and/or any other method to generate a force command that achieves the target depth and/or the target depth range based on the command signal and the detected seeding parameters. In instances in which a look-up table is implemented, the look-up table may include any array that replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation. For example, the look-up table may include an array of pre-calculated and indexed implement positions stored in static program storage.”);
Regarding claim 21, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Brinker further teaches that the set of georeferenced target planting depth values comprises a first georeferenced target planting depth value that is georeferenced to a first geographic location in the field and a second georeferenced target planting depth value, different than the first georeferenced target planting depth value, that is georeferenced to a second geographic location in the field. (Brinker [0055] – [0060] “The method 500, at step 512 continues with repeating, by the computing system, the steps 501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 508, and 510 for a plurality of geographic locations of the crop field until a condition is met, such as until the implement is done operating in the crop field, until all geographic locations of the field have been operated upon by the implement, until a predetermined number of geographic locations of the field have been operated upon by the implement, etc.” and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Thompson as modified by Brinker to incorporate the teachings of Brinker such that the set of georeferenced target planting depth values comprises a first georeferenced target planting depth value that is georeferenced to a first geographic location in the field and a second georeferenced target planting depth value, different than the first georeferenced target planting depth value, that is georeferenced to a second geographic location in the field. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Brinker, further in view of US-20130054078-A1 (“Anderson”).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Thompson as modified by Brinker does not teach that generating characterized field data comprises: assigning, to each topographic zone, a concave indicator, a convex indicator, or a flat indicator indicating whether the topographic zone has a topography that is concave, convex, or flat. However, Anderson teaches that generating characterized field data comprises: assigning, to each topographic zone, a concave indicator, a convex indicator, or a flat indicator indicating whether the topographic zone has a topography that is concave, convex, or flat (Anderson Fig. 3 and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Anderson to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that generating characterized field data comprises: assigning, to each topographic zone, a concave indicator, a convex indicator, or a flat indicator indicating whether the topographic zone has a topography that is concave, convex, or flat. Doing so would help minimize soil/crop damage (Anderson [0007]).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Brinker, further in view of US-20160292626-A1 to Green et. al. (“Green”).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson as modified by Brinker teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5. Thompson as modified by Brinker does not teach that running the depth generation model comprises: providing the characterized field data to the depth generation model; and running the depth generation model based on the characterized field data. However, Green teaches that running the depth generation model comprises: providing the characterized field data to the depth generation model; and running the depth generation model based on the characterized field data (Green [0222]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Green to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that running the depth generation model comprises: providing the characterized field data to the depth generation model; and running the depth generation model based on the characterized field data. Doing so would help accurately estimate forest structure (Green [0010]).
Claim 14-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Brinker, further in view of US-10827663-B2 to Gresch et. al. (“Gresch”).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson teaches a planting depth control system (Thompson Claim 1), comprising:
a model running system configured to run a depth generation model (Thompson [0044] – [0045] “In instances in which a look-up table is implemented, the look-up table may include any array that replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation. For example, the look-up table may include an array of pre-calculated and indexed implement positions stored in static program storage.”) to obtain a set of target planting depth values (Thompson Abstract “The computing system is further configured to receive an input associated with a target depth range of the row unit into an underlying field” and [0041] – [0042]);
detecting a location of the planting machine (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 is informed of the current position of the implement 10 when generating the command signal.”);
a processor configured to automatically identify a target planting depth value from the set of target planting depth values, based on the detected location (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 uses an algorithm, look-up table, chart, graph, and/or any other method to generate a force command that achieves the target depth and/or the target depth range based on the command signal and the detected seeding parameters. In instances in which a look-up table is implemented, the look-up table may include any array that replaces a runtime computation with an indexing operation. For example, the look-up table may include an array of pre-calculated and indexed implement positions stored in static program storage.”);
and a control signal generator configured to automatically generate a control signal to control a planting depth actuator to control a planting depth of the planting machine based on the identified target planting depth value (Thompson [0044] “the computing system 102 may generate a command signal to move the implement 10 from an actual depth to the target depth and/or target depth range.”).
Thompson does not teach that the target planting depth values are georeferenced. However, Brink teaches the target planting depth values are georeferenced (Brinker [0010] “Other types of useful maps can be generated as well, such as a map showing planting trench depths (based on data collected from monitoring operative rows of the implement). In some embodiments, the method also includes performing the aforementioned operations for multiple or all the operative rows of an implement.” and [0055] “At step 504, the method 500 continues with matching, by the computing system, the geographic location of the crop field with a location entity of a model for a row position map of the crop field. The location entity corresponds to the geographic location.” and [0056]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker such that the target planting depth values are georeferenced. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Thompson as modified by Brinker does not teach that a location sensor is used to detect a location of a planning machine. However, Gresch discloses a location sensor configured to detect a location of a planting machine (Gresch col 9 lines 63 – 67 “As planting machine 100 moves about the field, it may be that the target planting depth identified by target depth identifying logic 290 changes based on the location of planting machine 100. Therefore, logic 290 may receive a location sensor input indicative of that location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Thompson as modified by Brinker to incorporate the teachings of Gresch such that the system further comprises a location sensor configured to detect a location of a planting machine. Doing so would help the system keep track of the machine as it moves about the field (Gresch col 9 lines 63 – 67).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson as modified by Brinker and Gresch teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Thompson further discloses a data extraction system configured to access historic planting depth data (Thompson [0044]) and topography data corresponding to the historic planting depth data; and a model training processor configured to train a depth generation model based on the historic planting depth data and the corresponding topography data (Thompson [0045]). Brinker further teaches a data extraction system configured to access historic yield data and topography data corresponding to the historic yield data; and a model training processor configured to train a depth generation model based on the historic yield data and the corresponding topography data (Brinker [0062] – [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker and Gresch such that the system further comprises a data extraction system configured to access historic yield data and topography data corresponding to the historic yield data; and a model training processor configured to train a depth generation model based on the historic yield data and the corresponding topography data. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 16, Thompson as modified by Brinker and Gresch teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15. Brinker further discloses a field data accessing system configured to obtain topographic data corresponding to a field to be planted, the model running system being configured to run the depth generation model based on the topographic data corresponding to the field to generate the set of georeferenced target planting depth values (Brinker Figs. 5-6 and [0062] – [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker and Gresch such that the system further comprises a field data accessing system configured to obtain topographic data corresponding to a field to be planted, the model running system being configured to run the depth generation model based on the topographic data corresponding to the field to generate the set of georeferenced target planting depth values. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Thompson as modified by Brinker and Gresch teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Brinker further discloses a field discretization processor configured to divide the field into discrete sections and identify the topographic data corresponding to each discrete section; and a topographic characterization processor configured to generate a set of topographic zones corresponding to the field based on the topographic data corresponding to each discrete section, wherein the topographic characterization processor is further configured to generate characterized field data by assigning, to each topographic zone, a topographic characteristic indicator indicative of a topography of the topographic zone (Brinker Fig. 8 and [0062] – [0066] and [0067] “The yield map 904 provides a crop yield percentage per sector and if the percentage is under 80%, a graphical warning is provided (e.g., see sectors 708 and 718 in FIGS. 9, 10 and 11). On the other hand, no graphical warning is provided in a sector when the percentage of the yield is equal to or greater than 80% (e.g., see sectors 706 and 716).”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Brinker to Thompson as modified by Brinker and Gresch such that the system further comprises a field discretization processor configured to divide the field into discrete sections and identify the topographic information corresponding to each discrete section; and a topographic characterization processor configured to generate a set of topographic zones corresponding to the field based on the topographic information corresponding to each discrete section, wherein the topographic characterization processor is further configured to generate characterized field data by assigning, to each topographic zone, a topographic characteristic indicator indicative of a topography of the topographic zone. Doing so would help operators keep the rows and wheels on the ground and prevent bottoming out (Brinker [0008]) as well as allow farmers and/or operators to study and monitor flawed trenches (Brinker [0066]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/12/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claim 18 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Interview Summary, the examiner only acknowledged applicant’s arguments and understood where they were coming from, not that there was a preliminary agreement prior to further search and consideration.
With respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
Claims 1, 14, and 19: As discussed during the interview, Thompson has not been shown to teach "a set of georeferenced target planting depth values."
Claims 1 and 14: This paragraph of Thompson has not been shown to teach identifying a target planting depth value from a set of georeferenced target planting depth values, based on the detected location [of the planting machine]."
Claim 14: These paragraphs, which are reproduced above, do not mention a "model", and have not been shown to teach or suggest a depth generation model as claimed.
Office response:
The office agrees.
The office agrees. See updated mapping
See updated mapping of Thompson for the limitation “model”
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights