Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a second Non-Final Office action to Application Serial Number 18/545,006, filed on December 19, 2023. In response to Examiner’s Office Action of March 19, 2026, Applicant, on June 22, 2026, did not amend any claim. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35. U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been
considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C.§ 101 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
Updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been applied to amended claims. Please refer to the § 103 rejection for further explanation and rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed June 22, 2026.
On Pgs. 7-10 of the Remarks, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, Applicant states the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and further submits the claims are integrated into a practical application. In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The present claims are monitoring soil properties. Examiner recommends amending the claim language to include the use case and benefits obtained from monitoring the soil properties which will clearly assert the practical application of soil analysis (i.e. reducing strain, increasing useful soil life, reducing costs, etc. )
On Pgs.10-13 of the Remarks, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, Applicant states prior art does not disclose “a plurality of soil property sensors supported on the agricultural implement and spaced apart along a vertical direction, each of the plurality of soil property sensors being configured to generate soil property data indicative of at least one soil property when positioned below the surface of the field," or "a computing system configured to:" "determine when one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data," and "deactivate the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field,". In response, Applicants arguments are persuasive regarding Zemenchik not disclosing below surface sensor technology and a second Non-Final Action has been issued below.
Examiner finds Zemenchik does discloses "determine when one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data," in Par. 25- The soil analyzer 28 is a non-contact analyzer (e.g., soil surface sensor; low disruption or compaction sensor, etc.) that is configured to be positioned proximate (e.g., proximal) to the agricultural field 30 while obtaining data. As used herein, proximate refers to above or at the soil surface. In certain embodiments, proximate may refer to a distance that does not contact the surface 22 but is close enough to facilitate accurate measurements. And Zemenchik discloses "deactivate the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field," in Par. 42- , in certain embodiments, the controller 96 may send a signal to the analyzer 28 to activate and begin data collection when the mounting assembly 26 reaches the operation position 92 (e.g., via sensors on the mounting assembly detecting the position of the first support arm 52 and/or the second support arm 68). As will be appreciated, a similar operation may transition the mounting assembly 26 from the operation position 92 to the stored position 46 and deactivate the analyzer 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to soil property monitoring.
Claim 1 recites a system for soil property monitoring, and Claim 11 recites a method for soil property monitoring, which include receiving position data generated by a position sensor of the agricultural implement, the position data being indicative of a distance between the frame and a surface of the field; determining when one or more sensors of a plurality of soil property sensors supported on the agricultural implement are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data, the plurality of soil property sensors being spaced apart along a vertical direction, each of the plurality of soil property sensors being configured to generate soil property data indicative of at least one soil property when positioned below the surface of the field; and deactivating the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” – managing personal behavior. The recitation of “computing system”, and “system”, provide nothing in the claim elements to preclude the step from being “Methods of Organizing Human Activity”- managing interactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims primarily recite the additional element of using computer components to perform each step. The “computing system”, and “system” is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Regarding the additional elements of “agriculture implement” - These limitations amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Regarding “sensor” - These limitations amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. In particular, there is a lack of improvement to a computer or technical field in soil analysis.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computing system”, and “system” is insufficient to amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With regards to receiving data and step 2B, it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Regarding the additional elements of “agriculture implement” and step 2B - These limitations amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Regarding “sensor” and step 2B - These limitations amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function(s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent Claims 2-10, and 12-20 recite determine when the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data by: determining the distance between the frame and the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data; determining when the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the distance between the frame and the surface of the field and a distance between each of the plurality of soil property sensors and the frame along the vertical direction; wherein the position sensor is associated with a frame actuator configured to adjust the distance between the frame and the surface of the field, the position data being indicative of a position of the frame actuator, the position of the frame actuator being indicative of the distance between the frame and the surface of the field; wherein the position sensor has a field of view directed towards the surface of the field, the position data indicating the distance between the frame and the surface of the field; wherein the plurality of soil property sensors comprises first sensors and second sensors, the first sensors being spaced apart from each other along the vertical direction, the second sensors being spaced apart from each other along the vertical direction, the soil property data generated by the first sensors being indicative of a first soil property, the soil property data generated by the second sensors being indicative of a second soil property, the second soil property being different from the first soil property; wherein the first sensors comprise infrared sensors and the second sensors comprise capacitance sensors, the first soil property being soil temperature and the second soil property being soil moisture; wherein the first sensors are supported on a first housing part and the second sensors are supported on a second housing part, the second housing part being separate from the first housing part; wherein the first sensors are spaced apart from each other by a first distance along the vertical direction and the second sensors are spaced apart from each other by a second distance along the vertical direction, the first distance and the second distance being substantially equal; receive the soil property data generated by one or more remaining sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors other than the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field; and determine the at least one soil property for one or more different depths of the field based on the soil property data generated by the one or more remaining sensors; perform a control action associated with the agricultural implement based at least in part on the at least one soil property for the one or more different depths of the field; and further narrowing the abstract idea. These recited limitations in the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exceptions in Claims 1, and 11. Regarding Claims, 2, 9-10, 12, 15-18 and the additional elements of “computing system” it is M2106.05(d)- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Regarding claim 2-9, 12, 14-16 and 19-20and the additional element of sensor - amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”). Regarding claim 3, 13 and 17 and the additional element of “frame actuator”- amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and/or mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik et al., US Publication No. 20170064900 A1, [hereinafter Zemenchik], in view of Porth et al., US Publication No. 20220346303 A1, [hereinafter Porth] in further view of Henry, US Publication No. 20210215595 A1, [hereinafter Henry].
Regarding Claim 1,
Zemenchik teaches
An agricultural system for monitoring soil properties within a field, the agricultural system comprising: an agricultural implement, comprising: a frame; a plurality of ground engaging tools supported on the frame, each of the plurality of ground engaging tools being configured to engage soil within a field to perform an agricultural operation as the agricultural implement moves across the field; (Zemenchik Abstract; Par. 20-21-“ FIG. 1 is a side view of an agricultural system 10. The agricultural system 10 includes a tow vehicle 12, a soil analyzer assembly 14 (e.g., assembly, analyzer assembly, etc.), and an agricultural implement 16. The tow vehicle 12 may be any vehicle suitable for towing the agricultural implement 16, such as a tractor, off-road vehicle, work vehicle, and the like. Additionally, although the illustrated implement is a stand-alone soil conditioner, the agricultural implement 16 may be any implement, such as a ground engaging implement (e.g., the soil conditioner, a tillage implement, a fertilizer implement, a planter, etc.), suitable for agricultural use.)
determine when one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data (Zemenchik Par. 25- The soil analyzer 28 is a non-contact analyzer (e.g., soil surface sensor; low disruption or compaction sensor, etc.) that is configured to be positioned proximate (e.g., proximal) to the agricultural field 30 while obtaining data. As used herein, proximate refers to above or at the soil surface. In certain embodiments, proximate may refer to a distance that does not contact the surface 22 but is close enough to facilitate accurate measurements. For example, the analyzer 28 may be six inches, twelve inches, twenty four inches, or any suitable distance from the surface 22 as long as the emitted acoustic waves are able to reach the surface 22 and the resulting backscattered waves are able to return to the analyzer 28. However, in other embodiments, the analyzer 28, or components coupled to the analyzer 28, may contact the surface 22. Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the analyzer 28 includes integrated electronic/software components or systems including a global positioning system (GPS), data acquisition software, and the like.”) ;
and deactivate the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field (Zemenchik Par. 25; Par. 42- , in certain embodiments, the controller 96 may send a signal to the analyzer 28 to activate and begin data collection when the mounting assembly 26 reaches the operation position 92 (e.g., via sensors on the mounting assembly detecting the position of the first support arm 52 and/or the second support arm 68). As will be appreciated, a similar operation may transition the mounting assembly 26 from the operation position 92 to the stored position 46 and deactivate the analyzer 28 ) .
Zemenchik teaches soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Porth:
a plurality of soil property sensors supported on the agricultural implement and spaced apart along a vertical direction, each of the plurality of soil property sensors being configured to generate soil property data indicative of at least one soil property when positioned below the surface of the field (Porth Par. 16- The two or more sets of physical sensors may be spaced at uniform depths beneath the ground surface or the two or more sets of physical sensors may be spaced at varying depths beneath the ground surface. The one or more physical sensors may be selected from at least one of: a moisture sensor, a temperature sensor, a nitrogen/phosphorus/potassium (NPK) sensor, a solar radiation sensor, a rain gauge, and a wind speed sensor.; Par. 51-52- The multi-depth field data 802 may comprise soil sensor data such as nutrition, moisture, and/or conductivity with geo-location for 3D mapping.; Par. 65- The LiDAR sensor 321 may be an ultra-high point cloud precision and density sensor that may feature an angular precision of 0.03-degrees and/or a beam-divergence angle of 0.12-degrees in a vertical direction and 0.02-degrees in a horizontal direction. The LiDAR sensor 321 may sample point data at approximately 40 megabytes (MB) of data every 10 seconds (e.g. approximately 33.5 Mbps), at a resolution of approximately 2-cm, up to a distance of 500-m radially per LiDAR sensor 321.”;) ;
Zemenchik, and Porth are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Porth by utilizing below surface analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving crop monitoring (Porth Par. 43).
Zemenchik in view of Porth teach soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Henry:
and a position sensor configured to generate position data indicative of a distance between the frame and a surface of the field (Henry Par. 31- . In some embodiments, the second depth 110 corresponds to the penetration depth of the coulter 42. However, in other embodiments, the second depth 110 may correspond to any other distance below the field surface. It should be appreciated that the actuator 106 may be configured as any suitable device capable of moving the sensor arm 104 relative to the coulter 42, such as a linear actuator, such as a pneumatic or fluid driven actuator, a rotary actuator, and/or the like. It should further be appreciated that the actuator 106 may move the sensor arm 104 such that the sensor 102 may be positioned at any position between the raised and lowered positions to generate data indicative of the soil composition of the field at an associated depth(s) between the first and second depths 108, 110. ”)
and a computing system configured to: receive the position data generated by the position sensor (Henry Par. 59- “Additionally, the controller 202 may be configured to generate a field map (e.g., a graphical field map) identifying the soil composition at a plurality of locations and depths within the field. More specifically, in several embodiments, the data generated by the sensor(s) 102, 102′, 102″ may be geo-referenced or may otherwise be stored with corresponding location data associated with the specific location at which such data was collected within the field. In one embodiment, the data may be correlated to a corresponding position within the field based on location data received from one or more positioning devices. For instance, the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to a positioning device(s) 212, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) or another similar positioning device, configured to transmit a location corresponding to a position of the sensor(s) 102, 102′, 102″ within the field when the data is collected by the sensor(s) 102, 102′, 102″.”);
Zemenchik, Porth and Henry are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth, as taught by Henry by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth with the motivation of improving soil composition (Henry Par. 2).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 13, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 1, … and The agricultural method of claim 11, …
Zemenchik in view of Porth teach soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Henry:
wherein the position sensor is associated with a frame actuator configured to adjust the distance between the frame and the surface of the field, the position data being indicative of a position of the frame actuator, the position of the frame actuator being indicative of the distance between the frame and the surface of the field (Henry Par. 30-31; Par. 36- . The outer profile 120′ of the cam 118′ has varying distances from the rotational axis 44 such that, as the cam 118′ rotates, the distance between the sensor arm 104′ and the rotational axis 44 of the cam 118′ changes. For instance, the sensor 102′ is in a raised position (FIG. 3A) when the cam 118′ is at a first rotational position corresponding to the longest distance between the rotational axis 44 and the contact location of the sensor arm 104′ on the outer profile 120′ of the cam 118′. Similarly, the sensor 102′ is in a lowered position (FIG. 3B) when the cam 118′ is at a second rotational position corresponding to the shortest distance between the rotational axis 44 and the contact location of the sensor arm 104′ on the outer profile 120′ of the cam 118′.”).
Zemenchik, Porth and Henry are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth, as taught by Henry by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth with the motivation of improving soil composition (Henry Par. 2).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 14, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 1, … and The agricultural method of claim 11, …
Zemenchik in view of Porth teach soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Henry:
wherein the position sensor has a field of view directed towards the surface of the field, the position data indicating the distance between the frame and the surface of the field. (Henry Par. 11-18 . FIG. 2A illustrates a side view of a ground-engaging tool of an agricultural implement in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter, particularly illustrating components of one embodiment of a sensing assembly for monitoring the soil composition within a field;”; Par. 23- Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 illustrates a perspective view of one embodiment of an agricultural implement 12 in accordance with aspects of the present subject matter. In the illustrated embodiment, the agricultural implement 12 corresponds to a tillage implement configured to be towed across a field in a direction of travel (e.g., as indicated by arrow 14). However, in other embodiments, the agricultural implement 12 may be configured as any other suitable implement (e.g., planter, seeder, fertilizer, and/or the like.).
Zemenchik, Porth and Henry are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth, as taught by Henry by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth with the motivation of improving soil composition (Henry Par. 2).
Regarding Claim 9 and Claim 16, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to:… and The agricultural method of claim 11, further comprising:…
receive the soil property data generated by one or more remaining sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors other than the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field; (Zemenchik Par. 25- The soil analyzer 28 is a non-contact analyzer (e.g., soil surface sensor; low disruption or compaction sensor, etc.) that is configured to be positioned proximate (e.g., proximal) to the agricultural field 30 while obtaining data. As used herein, proximate refers to above or at the soil surface. In certain embodiments, proximate may refer to a distance that does not contact the surface 22 but is close enough to facilitate accurate measurements. For example, the analyzer 28 may be six inches, twelve inches, twenty four inches, or any suitable distance from the surface 22 as long as the emitted acoustic waves are able to reach the surface 22 and the resulting backscattered waves are able to return to the analyzer 28. However, in other embodiments, the analyzer 28, or components coupled to the analyzer 28, may contact the surface 22. Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the analyzer 28 includes integrated electronic/software components or systems including a global positioning system (GPS), data acquisition software, and the like.”) ;
and determine the at least one soil property for one or more different depths of the field based on the soil property data generated by the one or more remaining sensors (Zemenchik Par. 43- As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like.) .
Regarding Claim 10, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 9, wherein the computing system is further configured to:…
to perform a control action associated with the agricultural implement based at least in part on the at least one soil property for the one or more different depths of the field. (Zemenchik Par. 43- For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like.) .
Regarding Claim 11,
Zemenchik teaches
An agricultural method for monitoring soil properties within a field during an agricultural operation with an agricultural implement, the agricultural implement having a frame configured to support a plurality of ground engaging tools, each of the plurality of ground engaging tools being configured to engage soil within the field to perform the agricultural operation, the agricultural method comprising: …; (Zemenchik Abstract; Par. 20-21-“ FIG. 1 is a side view of an agricultural system 10. The agricultural system 10 includes a tow vehicle 12, a soil analyzer assembly 14 (e.g., assembly, analyzer assembly, etc.), and an agricultural implement 16. The tow vehicle 12 may be any vehicle suitable for towing the agricultural implement 16, such as a tractor, off-road vehicle, work vehicle, and the like. Additionally, although the illustrated implement is a stand-alone soil conditioner, the agricultural implement 16 may be any implement, such as a ground engaging implement (e.g., the soil conditioner, a tillage implement, a fertilizer implement, a planter, etc.), suitable for agricultural use.)
determining, with the computing system, when one or more sensors of a plurality of soil property sensors supported on the agricultural implement are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data,…; (Zemenchik Par. 4- The agricultural soil analyzer is configured to output a first signal indicative of a parameter of soil forward of the ground engaging tool relative to the direction of travel. Also, the agricultural system includes a controller communicatively coupled to the agricultural soil analyzer. The controller is configured to receive the first signal from the agricultural soil analyzer. Moreover, the controller is configured to determine a target speed of the agricultural system based on the first signal and to output a second signal indicative of the target speed, to determine a target pressure of the ground engaging tool based on the first signal and to output a third signal indicative of the target pressure, to determine a target penetration depth of the ground engaging tool based on the first signal and to output a fourth signal indicative of the target penetration depth, or a combination thereof. ; Par. 19- Soil analysis may be conducted in a variety of ways. For example, soil samples may be removed from an agricultural field and analyzed in a laboratory setting. Additionally, non-contact and/or soil surface sensors may be used to obtain various soil properties while reducing disturbance of the agricultural field. Typically, when using non-contact sensors, operators conduct soil analysis separately from planting, fertilizing, and/or tillage operations.”; Par. 25- The soil analyzer 28 is a non-contact analyzer (e.g., soil surface sensor; low disruption or compaction sensor, etc.) that is configured to be positioned proximate (e.g., proximal) to the agricultural field 30 while obtaining data. As used herein, proximate refers to above or at the soil surface. In certain embodiments, proximate may refer to a distance that does not contact the surface 22 but is close enough to facilitate accurate measurements. For example, the analyzer 28 may be six inches, twelve inches, twenty four inches, or any suitable distance from the surface 22 as long as the emitted acoustic waves are able to reach the surface 22 and the resulting backscattered waves are able to return to the analyzer 28. However, in other embodiments, the analyzer 28, or components coupled to the analyzer 28, may contact the surface 22. Moreover, as discussed in detail below, the analyzer 28 includes integrated electronic/software components or systems including a global positioning system (GPS), data acquisition software, and the like.”) ;
and deactivating, with the computing system, the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field. (Zemenchik Par. 25; Par. 42- , in certain embodiments, the controller 96 may send a signal to the analyzer 28 to activate and begin data collection when the mounting assembly 26 reaches the operation position 92 (e.g., via sensors on the mounting assembly detecting the position of the first support arm 52 and/or the second support arm 68). As will be appreciated, a similar operation may transition the mounting assembly 26 from the operation position 92 to the stored position 46 and deactivate the analyzer 28 ) .
Zemenchik teaches soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Porth:
… the plurality of soil property sensors being spaced apart along a vertical direction, each of the plurality of soil property sensors being configured to generate soil property data indicative of at least one soil property when positioned below the surface of the field (Porth Par. 16- The two or more sets of physical sensors may be spaced at uniform depths beneath the ground surface or the two or more sets of physical sensors may be spaced at varying depths beneath the ground surface. The one or more physical sensors may be selected from at least one of: a moisture sensor, a temperature sensor, a nitrogen/phosphorus/potassium (NPK) sensor, a solar radiation sensor, a rain gauge, and a wind speed sensor.; Par. 51-52- The multi-depth field data 802 may comprise soil sensor data such as nutrition, moisture, and/or conductivity with geo-location for 3D mapping.; Par. 65- The LiDAR sensor 321 may be an ultra-high point cloud precision and density sensor that may feature an angular precision of 0.03-degrees and/or a beam-divergence angle of 0.12-degrees in a vertical direction and 0.02-degrees in a horizontal direction. The LiDAR sensor 321 may sample point data at approximately 40 megabytes (MB) of data every 10 seconds (e.g. approximately 33.5 Mbps), at a resolution of approximately 2-cm, up to a distance of 500-m radially per LiDAR sensor 321.”;) ;
Zemenchik, and Porth are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Porth by utilizing below surface analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving crop monitoring (Porth Par. 43).
Zemenchik in view of Porth teach soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Henry:
…receiving, with a computing system, position data generated by a position sensor of the agricultural implement, the position data being indicative of a distance between the frame and a surface of the field (Henry Par. 31- . In some embodiments, the second depth 110 corresponds to the penetration depth of the coulter 42. However, in other embodiments, the second depth 110 may correspond to any other distance below the field surface. It should be appreciated that the actuator 106 may be configured as any suitable device capable of moving the sensor arm 104 relative to the coulter 42, such as a linear actuator, such as a pneumatic or fluid driven actuator, a rotary actuator, and/or the like. It should further be appreciated that the actuator 106 may move the sensor arm 104 such that the sensor 102 may be positioned at any position between the raised and lowered positions to generate data indicative of the soil composition of the field at an associated depth(s) between the first and second depths 108, 110. ”; Par. 59- “Additionally, the controller 202 may be configured to generate a field map (e.g., a graphical field map) identifying the soil composition at a plurality of locations and depths within the field. More specifically, in several embodiments, the data generated by the sensor(s) 102, 102′, 102″ may be geo-referenced or may otherwise be stored with corresponding location data associated with the specific location at which such data was collected within the field. In one embodiment, the data may be correlated to a corresponding position within the field based on location data received from one or more positioning devices. For instance, the controller 202 may be communicatively coupled to a positioning device(s) 212, such as a Global Positioning System (GPS) or another similar positioning device, configured to transmit a location corresponding to a position of the sensor(s) 102, 102′, 102″ within the field when the data is collected by the sensor(s) 102, 102′, 102″.”);
Zemenchik and Henry are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Henry by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving soil composition (Henry Par. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural method of claim 11, further comprising:…
determining, with the computing system, one or more remaining sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors other than the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors determined to be positioned above the surface of the field; (Zemenchik Par. 4- The agricultural soil analyzer is configured to output a first signal indicative of a parameter of soil forward of the ground engaging tool relative to the direction of travel. Also, the agricultural system includes a controller communicatively coupled to the agricultural soil analyzer. The controller is configured to receive the first signal from the agricultural soil analyzer. Moreover, the controller is configured to determine a target speed of the agricultural system based on the first signal and to output a second signal indicative of the target speed, to determine a target pressure of the ground engaging tool based on the first signal and to output a third signal indicative of the target pressure, to determine a target penetration depth of the ground engaging tool based on the first signal and to output a fourth signal indicative of the target penetration depth, or a combination thereof. ; Par. 19) ;
and activating, with the computing system, the one or more remaining sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors. (Zemenchik Par. 25; Par. 42- , in certain embodiments, the controller 96 may send a signal to the analyzer 28 to activate and begin data collection when the mounting assembly 26 reaches the operation position 92 (e.g., via sensors on the mounting assembly detecting the position of the first support arm 52 and/or the second support arm 68).
Regarding Claim 17, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural method of claim 16, …
Zemenchik in view of Porth teach soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Henry:
further comprising controlling, with the computing system, an operation of a frame actuator to adjust the distance between the frame and the surface of the field based at least in part on the at least one soil property for the one or more different depths of the field. (Henry Par. 6- The system further includes a sensor configured to generate data indicative of a soil composition within the field, with the sensor being movable relative to the ground-engaging tool while the implement moves across the field such that the sensor generates data indicative of the soil composition at different depths within the field. Additionally, the system includes a controller communicatively coupled to the sensor. The controller is configured to determine the soil composition at the different depths within the field based at least in part on the data received from the sensor.; Par. 30-31; Par. 36- . The outer profile 120′ of the cam 118′ has varying distances from the rotational axis 44 such that, as the cam 118′ rotates, the distance between the sensor arm 104′ and the rotational axis 44 of the cam 118′ changes. For instance, the sensor 102′ is in a raised position (FIG. 3A) when the cam 118′ is at a first rotational position corresponding to the longest distance between the rotational axis 44 and the contact location of the sensor arm 104′ on the outer profile 120′ of the cam 118′. Similarly, the sensor 102′ is in a lowered position (FIG. 3B) when the cam 118′ is at a second rotational position corresponding to the shortest distance between the rotational axis 44 and the contact location of the sensor arm 104′ on the outer profile 120′ of the cam 118′.”).
Zemenchik, Porth and Henry are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth, as taught by Henry by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth with the motivation of improving soil composition (Henry Par. 2).
Regarding Claim 18,
The agricultural method of claim 16, further comprising controlling, with the computing system, an operation of a user interface associated with the agricultural implement based at least in part on the at least one soil property for the one or more different depths of the field (Zemenchik Par. 41-43- As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22.) .
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porth et al., US Publication No. 20170064900 A1, [hereinafter Zemenchik], in view of Porth et al., US Publication No. 20220346303 A1, [hereinafter Porth], in further view of Henry, US Publication No. 20210215595 A1, [hereinafter Henry], and in further view of Stanhope, US Publication No. 20200084953 A1, [hereinafter Stanhope].
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 12 Zemenchik in view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to determine when the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data by:… and The agricultural method of claim 11, wherein determining when the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data comprises:… along the vertical direction.
Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach distance and the feature is expounded upon by Stanhope:
determining, with the computing system, the distance between the frame and the surface of the field based at least in part on the position data; and determining, with the computing system, when the one or more sensors of the plurality of soil property sensors are positioned above the surface of the field based at least in part on distance between the frame and the surface of the field and a distance between each of the plurality of soil property sensors and the frame… (Stanhope Par. 45- “the system 200 may be configured to sense a first distance (e.g., as indicated by arrow 134 in FIG. 3) defined between a given reference point (e.g., the implement frame 20) and the soil surface 128 and a second distance (e.g., as indicated by arrow 136 in FIG. 3) defined between such reference point (e.g., the implement frame 20) and the tip 108 of the ground engaging tool 38 … the first return signal(s) 130 may be indicative of the first distance 134 defined between the reference point and the soil surface 128. For example, in one embodiment, a time duration or time-of-flight (TOF) defined between when the sensor signal(s) 124 is emitted by the sensor 122 and the first return signal(s) 130 is received by the sensor 122 may be indicative of the first distance 134.”; Par. 47);
Zemenchik, Porth, Henry and Stanhope are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry, as taught by Stanhope by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry with the motivation of improving determining soil parameters of a field across which an agricultural implement is being moved, such as at a selected planting depth within the field (Stanhope Par. 4).
Claims 5-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zemenchik et al., US Publication No. 20170064900 A1, [hereinafter Zemenchik], in view of Porth et al., US Publication No. 20220346303 A1, [hereinafter Porth] ,in view of Henry, US Publication No. 20210215595 A1, [hereinafter Henry], and in further view of Zemenchik et al., US Publication No. 20210259149 A1, [hereinafterZemenchik2].
Regarding Claim 5, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of soil property sensors comprises first sensors and second sensors,…
Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach soil sensors and the feature is expounded upon by Zemenchik2:
the first sensors being spaced apart from each other along the vertical direction, the second sensors being spaced apart from each other along the vertical direction, the soil property data generated by the first sensors being indicative of a first soil property, the soil property data generated by the second sensors being indicative of a second soil property, the second soil property being different from the first soil property (Zemenchik2 Par. 25- 26- For example, the optical soil monitoring sensor(s) 112 may include an optical nitrate-N sensor. Furthermore, as discussed in detail below, the soil monitoring system 102 may include multiple optical soil monitoring sensors disposed along a vertical axis of the shank, thereby enabling the soil monitoring system to monitor one or more soil properties at different soil depths concurrently. In addition, in certain embodiments, the soil monitoring system 102 may include one or more second optical soil monitoring sensors coupled to a second lateral side of the shank 104, opposite the lateral side (e.g., first lateral side) of the shank.)
Zemenchik, Porth, Henry and Zemenchik2 are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry, as taught by Zemenchik2 by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry with the motivation of improving farming limited, possibly unreliable, information related to soil monitoring (Zemenchik2 Par. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry in further view of Zemenchik2 teach The agricultural system of claim 5, …
Zemenchik teaches soil analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Porth:
…the first soil property being soil temperature …(Porth Par. 53- Turning to FIG. 4, the stationary field monitor 300 may wirelessly communicate with the multi-depth sensors 200. In this aspect, the homogenous multi-depth sensors 200 may be identical in configuration and/or functionality. Other aspects may have heterogeneous multi-depth sensors 200 that may have different configurations and/or functionality. The multi-depth sensors 200 may comprise at least one of: a humidity sensor, an NKP sensor, a conductivity sensor, a temperature sensor, and/or any combination thereof. Although FIG. 4 demonstrates nine multi-depth sensors 200, the number of multi-depth sensors 200 may be increased depending on the type of wireless communication technology being used. A range between each multi-depth sensor 200 and the stationary field monitor 300 may range from about 10-meters to about 10-kilometers depending on a range of the wireless communication system.
Zemenchik, and Porth are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Porth by utilizing below surface analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving crop monitoring (Porth Par. 43).
Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach soil sensors and the feature is expounded upon by Zemenchik2:
wherein the first sensors comprise infrared sensors and the second sensors comprise capacitance sensors, …and the second soil property being soil moisture. (Zemenchik2 Par. 49- While the soil monitoring system 102 includes optical soil monitoring sensor(s) 112 in the illustrated embodiment, in other embodiments, the soil monitoring system may include other suitable soil monitoring sensor(s) (e.g., alone or in combination with the optical soil monitoring sensor(s) 112 and/or the second soil monitoring sensor 134). For example, in certain embodiments, the soil monitoring system may include one or more active electromagnetic sensors configured to emit electromagnetic radiation into the soil within the probing area and to receive electromagnetic radiation from the soil within the probing area. The electromagnetic radiation may be within any suitable portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as radio frequency radiation, microwave radiation, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, other suitable electromagnetic radiation, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, in certain embodiments, the soil monitoring system may include one or more passive electromagnetic sensors configured to receive electromagnetic radiation from the soil within the probing area without emitting electromagnetic radiation into the soil within the probing area. Additionally or alternatively, the soil monitoring system may include other suitable type(s) of soil monitoring sensor(s), such as electrical conductivity sensor(s), electrostatic sensor(s), capacitance sensor(s), inductive sensor(s), other suitable type(s) of sensor(s), or a combination thereof.)
Zemenchik, Porth, Henry and Zemenchik2 are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry, as taught by Zemenchik2 by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry with the motivation of improving farming limited, possibly unreliable, information related to soil monitoring (Zemenchik2 Par. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural system of claim 5, …
Zemenchik teaches soil sensor analysis and the feature is expounded upon by Porth:
wherein the first sensors are supported on a first housing part and the second sensors are supported on a second housing part, the second housing part being separate from the first housing part. (Porth Par. 74- Turning to FIG. 7, a physical structure of the multi-depth sensor 200 is shown. The electronic system 400 may be within a housing 252 with the solar panel 232 located at or near a top of the housing 252.; Par. 77- Turning to FIG. 8, the mobile field monitor 500 is shown uncoupled from the mobile platforms 600, 700. The mobile field monitor 500 comprises a number of electronic components 550 within a housing 502 described in further detail below. In this aspect, the housing 502 may be generally rectangular prism with a pair of rounded edges 520 at a top of the housing 502)
Zemenchik, and Porth are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Porth by utilizing below surface analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving crop monitoring (Porth Par. 43).
Regarding Claim 8, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry in further view of Zemenchik2 teach The agricultural system of claim 5, …
Zemenchik teaches soil sensor analysis and the following feature is taught by Porth:
wherein the first sensors are spaced apart from each other by a first distance along the vertical direction and the second sensors are spaced apart from each other by a second distance along the vertical direction, the first distance and the second distance being substantially equal. Porth Par. 16- wherein the first sensors are spaced apart from each other by a first distance along the vertical direction and the second sensors are spaced apart from each other by a second distance along the vertical direction, the first distance and the second distance being substantially equal.; Par. 65)
Zemenchik, and Porth are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Porth by utilizing below surface analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving crop monitoring (Porth Par. 43).
Regarding Claim 19, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach The agricultural method of claim 16, wherein the plurality of soil property sensors comprises first sensors and second sensors,,…
and wherein determining the at least one soil property for the one or more different depths of the field comprises determining both the first soil property based at least in part on the soil property data generated by the first sensors and the second soil property based at least in part on the soil property data generated by the second sensors (Zemenchik Par. 43- As shown in FIG. 7, data acquired by the analyzer 28 may be output to a soil conditioner controller 106, an interface module 108, a tow vehicle controller 128, and/or the controller 96. For example, the analyzer 28 may output a first signal indicative of a parameter of the soil and/or the surface 22. In certain embodiments, the parameter is the roughness (e.g., a value that is above a predetermined value stored in the memory 98) of the surface 22 to the controller 96. Upon receiving the first signal, the controller 96 may determine a target parameter to adjust based on the signal. In certain embodiments, the controller 96 is configured to determine a target pressure (e.g., via a table, an algorithm, or the like) based on the first signal received from the analyzer 28. Additionally, in other embodiments, the controller 96 may determine different target parameters. For example, the controller 96 may determine a soil penetration depth for a tillage implement. The controller 96 may output a second signal indicative of the target parameter (e.g., pressure, soil penetration depth, etc.) to the soil conditioner controller 106. Accordingly, the soil conditioner controller 106 may output a third signal to a hydraulic control system 130 of the implement 16 to apply greater pressure to the surface 22 (e.g., by sending more hydraulic fluid to the actuator 132 controlling the rolling baskets 44). While the illustrated embodiment includes the soil conditioner controller 106, in other embodiments the soil conditioner controller 106 be configured to control a tillage implement, or the like.) .
Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach soil sensors and the feature is expounded upon by Zemenchik2:
the first sensors being spaced apart from each other along the vertical direction, the second sensors being spaced apart from each other along the vertical direction, the soil property data generated by the first sensors being indicative of a first soil property, the soil property data generated by the second sensors being indicative of a second soil property, the second soil property being different from the first soil property, (Zemenchik2 Par. 25- 26- For example, the optical soil monitoring sensor(s) 112 may include an optical nitrate-N sensor. Furthermore, as discussed in detail below, the soil monitoring system 102 may include multiple optical soil monitoring sensors disposed along a vertical axis of the shank, thereby enabling the soil monitoring system to monitor one or more soil properties at different soil depths concurrently. In addition, in certain embodiments, the soil monitoring system 102 may include one or more second optical soil monitoring sensors coupled to a second lateral side of the shank 104, opposite the lateral side (e.g., first lateral side) of the shank.)
Zemenchik, Porth, Henry and Zemenchik2 are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry, as taught by Zemenchik2 by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry with the motivation of improving farming limited, possibly unreliable, information related to soil monitoring (Zemenchik2 Par. 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry in further view of Zemenchik2 teach The agricultural method of claim 19, …
Zemenchik teaches soil properties and the feature is expounded upon by Porth:
… determining a soil temperature …(Porth Par. 53- Turning to FIG. 4, the stationary field monitor 300 may wirelessly communicate with the multi-depth sensors 200. In this aspect, the homogenous multi-depth sensors 200 may be identical in configuration and/or functionality. Other aspects may have heterogeneous multi-depth sensors 200 that may have different configurations and/or functionality. The multi-depth sensors 200 may comprise at least one of: a humidity sensor, an NKP sensor, a conductivity sensor, a temperature sensor, and/or any combination thereof. Although FIG. 4 demonstrates nine multi-depth sensors 200, the number of multi-depth sensors 200 may be increased depending on the type of wireless communication technology being used. A range between each multi-depth sensor 200 and the stationary field monitor 300 may range from about 10-meters to about 10-kilometers depending on a range of the wireless communication system.
Zemenchik, and Porth are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik, as taught by Porth by utilizing below surface analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik with the motivation of improving crop monitoring (Porth Par. 43).
Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry teach soil sensors and the feature is expounded upon by Zemenchik2:
wherein the first sensors comprise infrared sensors and the second sensors comprise capacitance sensors, and wherein determining for the one or more different depths of the field both the first soil property based at least in part on the soil property data generated by the first sensors and the second soil property based at least in part on the soil property data generated by the second sensors comprises… based at least in part on the soil property data generated by the first sensors and a soil moisture based at least in part on the soil property data generated by the second sensors. (Zemenchik2 Par. 49- While the soil monitoring system 102 includes optical soil monitoring sensor(s) 112 in the illustrated embodiment, in other embodiments, the soil monitoring system may include other suitable soil monitoring sensor(s) (e.g., alone or in combination with the optical soil monitoring sensor(s) 112 and/or the second soil monitoring sensor 134). For example, in certain embodiments, the soil monitoring system may include one or more active electromagnetic sensors configured to emit electromagnetic radiation into the soil within the probing area and to receive electromagnetic radiation from the soil within the probing area. The electromagnetic radiation may be within any suitable portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as radio frequency radiation, microwave radiation, infrared radiation, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, other suitable electromagnetic radiation, or a combination thereof. Furthermore, in certain embodiments, the soil monitoring system may include one or more passive electromagnetic sensors configured to receive electromagnetic radiation from the soil within the probing area without emitting electromagnetic radiation into the soil within the probing area. Additionally or alternatively, the soil monitoring system may include other suitable type(s) of soil monitoring sensor(s), such as electrical conductivity sensor(s), electrostatic sensor(s), capacitance sensor(s), inductive sensor(s), other suitable type(s) of sensor(s), or a combination thereof.)
Zemenchik, Porth, Henry and Zemenchik2 are directed to soil analysis. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have improve upon data analysis of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry, as taught by Zemenchik2 by utilizing additional measurement analysis with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to the teachings of Zemenchik in view of Porth in further view of Henry with the motivation of improving farming limited, possibly unreliable, information related to soil monitoring (Zemenchik2 Par. 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Publication No. 20210341407A1 to Burkey et al.- Abstract-“ A sensor probe for underground soil measurement is provided. The sensor probe includes one or more first sensor circuits, one or more second sensor circuits, a power supply, and a processor. The processor is configured to control at least one of the one or more first sensor circuits or the one or more second sensor circuits. One or more of the first sensor circuits include an oscillator configured to generate a periodic wave, and a transmitter configured to transmit one or more signals. One or more of the second sensor circuits includes an oscillator configured to generate a periodic wave, and a probe element configured to receive the one or more signals via at least one of the transmitter of the one or more first sensor circuits or a transmitter of one or more additional first sensor circuits of an additional sensor probe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chesiree Walton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-5219. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8 AM and 5 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson, can be reached at (571) 270-5396. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”).
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/CHESIREE A WALTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights