DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to application Serial No. 18/551,801. Amended claim(s) 1-14, 18 and 23-27 have been examined and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 13, 18, and 23-27 are amended.
Claims 15-17 and 19-22 are canceled
Claim(s) 1-14, 18 and 23-27 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of PRO 63/179,609 filed 0.4/26/2021 and 371 of PCT/IB2022/052936 filed 03/30/2022
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023 and 05/07/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sporrer et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0258271), hereinafter, referred to as “Sporrer”.
Regarding [claim 1], Sporrer discusses a method of operating an agricultural machine (see, Abstract; see Figures 1-5; Paragraph [ 0015 ]: “There are a wide variety of different types of towing vehicles and towed agricultural implements. FIG. 1 is a pictorial illustration showing one example of a towing vehicle 100 and a towed agricultural implement 102. In the example shown in FIG. 1, towing vehicle 100 is a tractor having an operator's compartment 104 and a set of ground engaging elements (e.g., tracks) 106”) the method comprising:
generating a first representation (see Figure 4A, “222”. , “a baseline characteristic”]) of tools carried by an implement (see, Figure 4A-4B), by at least one computing device (see, “control system 150”) based on data from a sensor (see, Paragraph [0029]: “FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing one example of implement detection and control system 150, in more detail. Implement detection and control system 150 illustratively includes detection initiation logic 160, reference generation logic 161, characteristic sensors 162, problem detection logic 164”), wherein the sensor is carried by the implement (see, Paragraphs [0015]: “Towed vehicle 104 also has a set of characteristic sensors 108 that sense one or more characteristics of towed implement 102. In the example shown in FIG. 1, towed implement 102 is illustratively a tillage implement. Therefore, it has a plurality of rows of ground engaging elements 110 that engage the soil in field 112 over which implement 102 is being towed. Towing vehicle 100 is attached to towed implement 102 by one or more links 114.”; and [0016]-[0018]: “with respect to sensors 108 being mounted on towing vehicle 100. This is described for the sake of example only. This need not be the case. Instead, sensor 108 (or other portions of the system) may be disposed on an unmanned aerial vehicle, or another item, which can generate the sensor signals, when needed. Similarly, the sensors 108, or other portions of the system, may be disposed on towed implement 102 where they communicate with a control system on towing vehicle 100”; and [0029]: “Characteristic sensors 162 can include one or more non-visual electromagnetic (EM) radiation sensors 176. Such sensors can include, for example, LIDAR sensors 178, radar sensors 180, infrared (IR) sensors 182, ultrasonic sensors 184, laser sensors 186, and they can include a wide variety of other sensors that sense electromagnetic radiation in the non-visual frequency range, as indicated by block 188. Sensors 162 can also include auditory sensors 190, temperature sensors 192, and other sensors 194.”) and [0038]-[0039]);
traversing a field with the implement with the tools engaging soil of the field (see, Figure 4a, “232”; Paragraphs [0022]; and [0044]: “At some point, vehicle 100 and implement 102 began operating so that implement 102 needs to be checked for problems. Having the towing vehicle 100 and implement 102 in operation is indicated by block 232 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. Trigger detector 170 then eventually detects a trigger indicating that a checking operation is to be performed.”);
raising the tools above ground to disengage the soil of the field (see, Paragraphs [0027]: “” and [0030]: “a tillage implement and the ground engaging elements are raised out of the ground”);
generating a second representation of tools carried by the implement, by the at least one computing device, while the tools are above the ground (see, Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; [0030]; and [0040]: “For instance, if the non-visual EM sensors 176 need ground engaging elements of implement 102 to be out of engagement with the ground in order to identify the baseline characteristic, then baseline generator logic 161 determines when towing vehicle 100 is making a headland turn, so that those elements are out of engagement with the ground and can be more easily detected. It can do this by receiving a geographic position signal from one of sensors 137, by receiving an input signal indicating the operator has controlled implement 102 to lift it out of the ground…”; [0030], [0046] For instance, if implement 102 is a tillage implement and the ground engaging elements are raised out of the ground at headland turns, then when towing vehicle 100 begins making a headland turn, this may trigger system 150 to perform a detection operation with respect to the ground engaging elements. A wide variety of other triggers can be used as well. ); and comparing, by the at least one computing device, the second representation to the first representation to detect damage to the implement (see, Paragraph [0028]; [0033]: “Data store interaction logic 196 then interacts with data store 166 (if needed) in order to obtain a value against which the sensed characteristic can be compared to identify a problem. It may be that, in order to identify a problem with a given set of functionality, two real time ( or near real time) signals are compared against one another. For instance, if there are multiple working groups ( e.g., multiple sets of similar tools) on implement 102, it may be that data store interaction logic 196 need not obtain any stored characteristics from data store 166. Instead, two real time (or near real time) characteristics from two different, but similar, working groups can be compared against one another to identify a problem.”; [0034]-[0037] and [0048]: “Once the real time ( or near real time) characteristic is obtained for the functionality on implement 102 to be tested, from sensors 162, and once the reference characteristic for comparison is obtained, then comparison logic 198 performs a comparison. This is indicated by block 266 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. It provides the result of the comparison to problem identifier logic 200 which determines whether the comparison indicates that the functionality of implement 102 that is currently being tested is exhibiting a problem.”).
As to [claim 3], Sporrer discloses the method of claim 1. Sporrer discloses wherein generating a first representation comprises generating the first representation when the implement is known to operate as designed (see, Paragraph [0035]: “Also, in one example, comparison indicators 202 can identify a type of comparison that is to be made for checking any particular functionality on implement 102. For instance, assume that implement 102 has a set of ground engaging tools or elements and also has a motor with various bearings. It may be that, when the tool functionality is to be checked, the sensed characteristic is a non-visual EM radiation characteristic that is to be compared against a baseline non-visual EM radiation characteristic 204”; see also Fig. 4A, element 222).
As to [claim 4], Sporrer discloses teaches the method of claim 1. Sporrer discloses wherein generating a first representation comprises generating the first representation after the implement has been used to work a field (see, Figure 4A, and Paragraph [0039]: “If needed, baseline generator logic 161 then generates one or more baseline characteristics 204, 206, 208, 210 that will be used for checking the functionality of implement 102 to identify whether it has a problem. It can also generate threshold values 212, where thresholds are to be used. This is indicated by block 222. In one example, if non-visual EM characteristics 204, or thresholds 212 are to be used, then baseline generator logic 161 identifies when towing vehicle 100 and implement 102 are in a position, or performing an operation, where the baseline characteristics can be generated.”; Fig. 4B 272 [0049] implement detection control system 150 determines whether the operation being performed by vehicle 100 and implement 102 is complete. This is indicated by 272. If not, processing reverts to block 234 where the system waits for trigger detector 170 to detect another trigger indicating that a problem check is to be performed.; Fig. 4A [0046], comparison types associated with 246; Examiner note: cyclical comparison is performed ).
As to [claim 6], Sporrer discloses the method of claim 1. Sporrer discloses wherein the first representation and the second representation each comprise representations of positions of the tools (see, Paragraph [0040]: “The baseline value can be taken before the operation starts in the field as well, such as during a calibration or baseline establishing period where operator 122 is instructed to place the towing vehicle 100 and implement 102 in an appropriate position so that the baseline characteristics can be established. Establishing the non-visual EM characteristics or thresholds is indicated by block 224 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4.”).
As to [claim 18], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 1, therefore claim 18would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
As to [claim 23], Sporrer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 18. Sporrer further discloses wherein the at least one computing device is configured to generate a representation of the tools using information from the at least one sensor when the tools are above ground (see, Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; [0030]; and [0040]: “For instance, if the non-visual EM sensors 176 need ground engaging elements of implement 102 to be out of engagement with the ground in order to identify the baseline characteristic, then baseline generator logic 161 determines when towing vehicle 100 is making a headland turn, so that those elements are out of engagement with the ground and can be more easily detected. It can do this by receiving a geographic position signal from one of sensors 137, by receiving an input signal indicating the operator has controlled implement 102 to lift it out of the ground…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Sporrer” in view of Zemenchik (US 2022/0348322).
As to [claim 2], Sporrer discloses the method of claim 1. As Sporrer discloses wherein the first representation and the second representation, the Sporrer does not explicitly discloses wherein…each comprise representations selected from the group consisting of images and 3-dimensional point clouds.
However, Zemenchik teaches
wherein the first representation and the second representation each comprise representations selected from the group consisting of images and 3-dimensional point clouds (see, Paragraphs [0063]: “the sensor assembly 38 includes a LIDAR system 112, an acoustic sensor 113, a thermal sensor/camera 114, a gas composition sensor 115, a visual camera 116, a particulate sensor 117, a stereoscopic camera 118, and an electric field and/or magnetic field sensor 119. As previously discussed, the LIDAR system 112 is configured to determine a point cloud corresponding to the target object and to output a signal indicative of the point cloud. …The particulate sensor 117 is configured to output a signal indicative of a particulate concentration within a gas emitted by a component of the target agricultural tool. Furthermore, the electric field and/or magnetic field sensor 119 is configured to output a signal indicative of a detected electric field and/or a detected magnetic field. While the illustrated sensor assembly 38 includes the LIDAR system 112…”; and [0080]: “While the comparison between monitored target object and the model of the target object in the reference unworn state is performed using a point cloud, in other embodiments, the comparison may be based on one or more 2D and/or 3D images of the target object. For example, the stereoscopic camera 118 may output a signal indicative of a 3D image of the target object, and the remote device/base station controller 156 may compare the 3D image of the target object to the model to determine the state of wear.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate an agricultural implements include ground engaging tools configured to interact with the soil as taught by Zemenchik. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey Monitoring target objects (e.g., ground engaging target objects and/or non-ground engaging target objects) facilitates determination of repair costs and/or the value the target agricultural implement (see, Paragraph [0015]).
As to [claim 24], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim 2, therefore claim 24 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 5, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Sporrer” in view of Plouzek et al. (Pub. No.: US 20200363203), hereinafter, referred to as “Plouzek”.
As to [claim 5], Sporrer discloses the method of claim 1. Sporrer discloses wherein the first representation and the second representation, however, does not explicitly discloses each comprise representations of a shape of the tools.
However, Plouzek teaches
… representations of a shape of the tools. (see, Paragraph [0070]: “The database 212 may include images of a plurality of ground engaging tools 134. Such images are saved as a library of image files and computerized models in the database 212. Such models or template images may include three-dimensional and two dimensional views of the plurality of ground engaging tools 134 attachable to the machine 102. Each such image or model in the database 212 may also include one or more dimensions associated with a ground engaging tool and/or a work tool, including the distance the ground engaging tool extends from the work tool, the width of the ground engaging tool, the height of the ground engaging tool, etc.”; and [0079]: “The electronic controller unit may be configured to use machine learning to determine at least one of the following: a bare shape of the work tool, a shape of the work tool with new ground engaging tools attached to the work tool, a shape of a worn work tool necessitating maintenance, and a shape of a worn GET necessitating maintenance (see block 918 of FIG. 31, see also FIG. 21).”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement where the capture images of a plurality of ground engaging tools, determining representations of a shape of the tools as taught by Plouzek. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey he acquired image to a database of existing images to determine the presence, the amount of wear, or the absence of the ground engaging tool, and grading the quality of the acquired image to determine if the quality of the acquired image is poor or acceptable (see, Paragraph [0008]).
As to claim [0025], Sporrer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 18. As Sporrer discloses wherein the at least one sensor (see, Paragraph [0029])…, however, Sporrer does not explicitly disclose wherein….comprises a camera.
However, Plouzek teaches
wherein….comprises a camera (see, Paragraph [0052]: “the plurality of sensors 110 may be a plurality of cameras 110'.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement a camera capturing images of a plurality of ground engaging tools, determining representations of the tools as taught by Plouzek. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a ground engaging tool monitoring system that allows the operator or a control system of such a machine to detect if a ground engaging tool becomes worn, damaged, or missing.(see, Paragraph [0001]), and/or that the acquired image to a database of existing images to determine the presence, the amount of wear, or the absence of the ground engaging tool, and grading the quality of the acquired image to determine if the quality of the acquired image is poor or acceptable (see, Paragraph [0008]).
As to [claim 26], Sporrer discloses the agricultural implement of claim 18,. Sporrer mention in paragraph [0029] multiple sensors, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a … sensor, however, does not disclose “a distance sensor”.
However, Plouzek teaches
wherein… a distance sensor (see, Paragraphs [0063]: “As best seen in FIGS. 1 and 14, the plurality of cameras 110' are placed a fixed distance away 214 from the plurality of ground engaging tools 134, providing multiple vantage points 210 of the individual ground engaging tools 134, giving the electronic controller unit 126 sufficient 3D information to determine the relative wear between the individual ground engaging tools 134”; [0070]: “Such models or template images may include three-dimensional and two dimensional views of the plurality of ground engaging tools 134 attachable to the machine 102. Each such image or model in the database 212 may also include one or more dimensions associated with a ground engaging tool and/or a work tool, including the distance the ground engaging tool extends from the work tool, the width of the ground engaging tool, the height of the ground engaging tool, etc.”; and [0115]: “Certain variables may be chosen depending on the application to obtain the desired result for the GET monitoring system. For example, the dimensions of wear for the GET may be measured in millimeters, certain camera specifications and their relative placement to the ground engaging tool(s) may be chosen, the distance from the camera to a GET may be selected, the camera field of view may be varied depending on the application”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to implement a distance sensor of ground engaging tool as taught by Plouzek. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey a ground engaging tool monitoring system that allows the operator or a control system of such a machine to detect if a ground engaging tool becomes worn, damaged, or missing.(see, Paragraph [0001]), and/or that the acquired image to a database of existing images to determine the presence, the amount of wear, or the absence of the ground engaging tool, and grading the quality of the acquired image to determine if the quality of the acquired image is poor or acceptable (see, Paragraph [0008]).
As to [claim 27], recites analogous limitations that are present in claim(s) 5 and/or 6, therefore claim 27 would be rejected for the same/similar premise above.
Claim(s) 7-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Sporrer” in view of Foster et al. (Pub . No .: US 2020/0114843), hereinafter, referred to as “Foster”.
As to [claim 7], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 1. Sporrer does not explicitly disclose “initiating a corrective action”, however, it interpreted that Sporrer disclose actions are taken by the at least one computing device after comparing the second representation to the first representation (see, Paragraph [0028], “control signal generator 154 illustratively generates control signals (or action signals) to control other items of towing vehicle 100 or towed agricultural implement 102, or to take other action in response to any identified problems.”; and [0030]: “Detection initiation logic 160 illustratively detects when implement detection and control system 150 is to perform a detection operation in an attempt to determine whether implement 102 has any problems. Therefore, trigger detector logic 170 can be configured to detect a wide variety of different types of triggers. In one example, trigger detector 170 can detect a trigger based upon a time out or other intermittent time period. For instance, the system 150 can check periodically, on predefined intervals, to determine whether implement 102 has a problem. It can also do it intermittently based on a wide variety of other triggers. For instance, if a sensed value changes quickly (such as moves by a threshold amount within a threshold time period), this may trigger system 150 to perform a detection operation. Trigger detector 170 may detect a trigger as a certain point during a certain operation. For instance, if implement 102 is a tillage implement and the ground engaging elements are raised out of the ground at headland turns, then when towing vehicle 100 begins making a headland turn, this may trigger system 150 to perform a detection operation with respect to the ground engaging elements”; and [0050]: “Control signal generator 154 generates action signals (or control signals) based upon the identified problem. This is indicated by block 274 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. It then takes some action based on the action signals or control signals. For instance, it can apply the control signals to controllable subsystems 136, operator interface mechanisms 142, communication systems 140 or other items to take an action in order to address the identified problem. This is indicated by block 276. For example, it can apply control signals to controllable subsystems 136 on towing vehicle 100 in order to change the operation of vehicle 100 given the problem. By way of example, it may be that the problem is that a portion of implement 102 has broken so that the performance level of implement 102 will be highly deficient, or so that continued operation of implement 102 may result in further damage. In that case, control signals may control the propulsion system of vehicle 100 to stop vehicle 100 so that the problem can be fixed, in order to increase the performance level of implement 102 to an acceptable level, in order to avoid further damage to implement 102 or vehicle 100, or for other reasons. The control signals may control vehicle 102 to slow it down, to actuate various actuators, or to perform other actions.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, Sporrer covers, …“initiating a corrective action”.
However, additionally and/or alternatively, Foster, teaches
… “initiating a corrective action by the at least one computing device after comparing the second representation to the first representation (see, Paragraph [0062]: “The method (500) may include, at (506), when it is detected that the monitored movement parameter has experienced the damage pattern, automatically initiate a corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 8], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. Sporrer in view of Foster, teacher wherein the corrective action is associated with preventing further damage to the implement (see, Paragraph [0020]: “When it is detected that the monitored movement parameter has experienced the damage pattern, a corrective action may automatically be initiated that is associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine. Example corrective actions include reducing the speed of the agricultural machine (e.g., stopping the agricultural machine) and/or providing a notification to an operator or supervisor of the agricultural machine.”; and [0021]: “Automatically initiating the corrective action may prevent further damage to the agricultural machine and/or associated equipment. As an example, if a catastrophic failure event (e.g., fracture, plastic deformation, etc.) is detected, the corrective action may prevent continued operation of the agricultural machine immediately after the event, which could cause more damage to the agricultural machine. Instead, the operator may inspect the agricultural machine for damage upon detection of the catastrophic failure event and/or take other actions to prevent additional damage, such as repairing components of the agricultural machine that are at risk for further damage.”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 9], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. Sporrer in view of Foster, teaches wherein the corrective action is associated with preventing damage to the field (see, Paragraph [0023]: “As another example, progressive failure (e.g., crack propagation, fatigue , etc. ) may be detected before a catastrophic failure occurs. Such detection and corrective action may prevent the progressive failure from worsening and may thereby prevent a catastrophic failure from occurring.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 10], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. Sporrer in view of Foster, teaches wherein initiating a corrective action comprises reducing a ground speed of the agricultural machine (see, Paragraph [0020]: “When it is detected that the monitored movement parameter has experienced the damage pattern, a corrective action may automatically be initiated that is associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine. Example corrective actions include reducing the speed of the agricultural machine (e.g., stopping the agricultural machine) and/or providing a notification to an operator or supervisor of the agricultural machine.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 11], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. Sporrer in view of Foster teaches wherein initiating a corrective action comprises stopping the agricultural machine (see, Paragraph [0020]: “When it is detected that the monitored movement parameter has experienced the damage pattern, a corrective action may automatically be initiated that is associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine. Example corrective actions include reducing the speed of the agricultural machine (e.g., stopping the agricultural machine) and/or providing a notification to an operator or supervisor of the agricultural machine.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 13], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. Sporrer does not explicitly nor verbatimly disclose “initiating a corrective action” , however, Sporrer does disclose actions taken to preventative further damage to implement (see, Paragraph [0028], “control signal generator 154 illustratively generates control signals (or action signals) to control other items of towing vehicle 100 or towed agricultural implement 102, or to take other action in response to any identified problems.”; and [0030]: “Detection initiation logic 160 illustratively detects when implement detection and control system 150 is to perform a detection operation in an attempt to determine whether implement 102 has any problems. Therefore, trigger detector logic 170 can be configured to detect a wide variety of different types of triggers. In one example, trigger detector 170 can detect a trigger based upon a time out or other intermittent time period. For instance, the system 150 can check periodically, on predefined intervals, to determine whether implement 102 has a problem. It can also do it intermittently based on a wide variety of other triggers. For instance, if a sensed value changes quickly (such as moves by a threshold amount within a threshold time period), this may trigger system 150 to perform a detection operation. Trigger detector 170 may detect a trigger as a certain point during a certain operation. For instance, if implement 102 is a tillage implement and the ground engaging elements are raised out of the ground at headland turns, then when towing vehicle 100 begins making a headland turn, this may trigger system 150 to perform a detection operation with respect to the ground engaging elements”; and [0050]: “Control signal generator 154 generates action signals (or control signals) based upon the identified problem. This is indicated by block 274 in the flow diagram of FIG. 4. It then takes some action based on the action signals or control signals. For instance, it can apply the control signals to controllable subsystems 136, operator interface mechanisms 142, communication systems 140 or other items to take an action in order to address the identified problem. This is indicated by block 276. For example, it can apply control signals to controllable subsystems 136 on towing vehicle 100 in order to change the operation of vehicle 100 given the problem. By way of example, it may be that the problem is that a portion of implement 102 has broken so that the performance level of implement 102 will be highly deficient, or so that continued operation of implement 102 may result in further damage. In that case, control signals may control the propulsion system of vehicle 100 to stop vehicle 100 so that the problem can be fixed, in order to increase the performance level of implement 102 to an acceptable level, in order to avoid further damage to implement 102 or vehicle 100, or for other reasons. The control signals may control vehicle 102 to slow it down, to actuate various actuators, or to perform other actions.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the method claim, Sporrer covers, “initiating a corrective action” maintaining at least one of the tools above the ground.
However., additionally and/or alternatively, Foster, teaches
…“initiating a corrective action”… (see, Paragraphs [0062]-[0063]: “the agricultural machine may be operated by an operator, and the controller 102 may be configured to provide a notification to the operator via at least one of the display screen 118 or the alarm 120. The notification may include a variety of visual and/or audible signals. For example, the display screen 118 may produce a visual signal (e.g., text, image, moving graphic, etc.) and/or the alarm 120 may produce an audible signal (e.g., siren, speech notification , etc. ) configured to alert the operator of the agricultural machine of the detected damage condition.”; and [0064]: “Initiating the corrective action as describe herein may prevent further damage to the agricultural machine, thereby reducing maintenance and/or repair costs associated with operating the agricultural machine. Additionally, aspects of the present disclosure may provide increased security for operators of agricultural machine.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
As to [claim 14], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. Sporrer in view of Foster, teaches wherein initiating a corrective action comprises providing a notification to at least one of an operator or a supervisor of the agricultural machine (see, Paragraphs [0062]-[0063]: “the agricultural machine may be operated by an operator, and the controller 102 may be configured to provide a notification to the operator via at least one of the display screen 118 or the alarm 120. The notification may include a variety of visual and/or audible signals. For example, the display screen 118 may produce a visual signal (e.g., text, image, moving graphic, etc.) and/or the alarm 120 may produce an audible signal (e.g., siren, speech notification , etc. ) configured to alert the operator of the agricultural machine of the detected damage condition.”; and [0064]: “Initiating the corrective action as describe herein may prevent further damage to the agricultural machine, thereby reducing maintenance and/or repair costs associated with operating the agricultural machine. Additionally, aspects of the present disclosure may provide increased security for operators of agricultural machine.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify corrective action associated with preventing further damage to the agricultural machine as taught by Foster. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey monitoring the movement parameter associated with the component and detecting a change in the monitored movement parameter over time that is associated with a damage pattern. The damage pattern may be indicative of damage to the agricultural machine (see, Abstract).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporrer in view of Foster, and Harnetiaux (Pub . No .: US 2020/0340215).
As to [claim 12], Sporrer in view of Foster teaches the method of claim 7. As Sporrer and Foster teaching wherein the corrective action is associated with maintaining the tools (see, Paragraph [0022]-[0021]), however, neither Sporrer nor Foster does not explicitly disclose wherein the corrective active is associated…at a selected depth in the field.
Additionally, Harnetiaux teaches
…at a selected depth in the field (see, Paragraph [0035]: “the controller 152 may be configured to control one or more components of the agricultural implement 10 based on the determination of the wear on the disc opener(s) 34. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the controller 152 may be configured to control one or more of the actuators 102 to adjust the operation of the disc opener(s) 34. For instance, the controller 152 may be configured to control the actuator (s) 102 associated with the gauge wheel 30 to adjust the penetration depth 35 of the associated disc opener(s) 34 when it is determined that one or more of the disc opener(s) 34 is worn significantly enough that an adjustment is necessitated or desired. More specifically, the controller 152 may be configured to control the actuators 102 associated with the gauge wheels 30 to raise the gauge wheels 30 to increase the penetration depth 35 of the associated disc openers 34 when the disc openers 34 have experienced a given amount of wear.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to further modify the method includes determining, with the computing device, a status of the wear on the ground engaging tool based on the comparison of the input with the predetermined wear threshold as taught by Harnetiaux. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to convey an improved system and method for monitoring the wear on rotating ground engaging tools of an agricultural implement (see, Paragraph [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663