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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 3 and 17 have been cancelled. No claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with
functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing system” in claims 13-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and
equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim
limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “computing system” in claims 13-16 uses a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Computing system: [0028]
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites “receive input related to a user-defined threshold for acceptable material accumulation risk, wherein the defined basket actuator position is based at least partially on whether the determined clay content and output characteristic indicate an elevated risk of material accumulation” and this aspect appears to be new matter. The specification does not discuss a user-defined threshold for acceptable material accumulation risk.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “receive input related to a user-defined threshold for acceptable material accumulation risk, wherein the defined basket actuator position is based at least partially on whether the determined clay content and output characteristic indicate an elevated risk of material accumulation a probability range of a plugged condition as determined by the clay content of the soil within the field and the defined output characteristic” and it is unclear what is being conveyed by this limitation. First, since these limitations are not discussed in the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation is not clear. Second, the limitation is grammatically incorrect, and is either missing punctuation or part of the limitation was intended to be deleted but was not. Third, the term “elevated risk” is a relative term, as it is unclear what elevated is relative to. The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that input is received and the defined basket actuator position is based at least partially on the determined clay content and output characteristic.
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 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch (US 2021/0195821 A1) in view of Gunzenhauser (US 2018/0292339 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Knobloch discloses an agricultural system comprising: an implement including a frame assembly (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0022] – implement 10 may include a frame 28); a basket assembly operably coupled with the frame assembly (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0026] – basket assembly 54); one or more field sensors positioned forward of the basket assembly (see at least [0029, 0035, 0040-0041] - soil moisture sensors 102 may be positioned forward of basket assemblies 54); a basket actuator operably coupled with the basket assembly and the frame assembly, the basket actuator configured to alter a position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0028] – basket actuators 66); and a computing system communicatively coupled to the basket actuator, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system to (see at least [0032] – the controller 106 may generally include one or more processor(s) 110 and associated memory devices 112 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions): receive a defined output characteristic; receive data indicative of a determined content of soil within a field from the one or more field sensors; determine a defined basket actuator position based at least partially on the content of the soil within the field and the defined output characteristic; and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator (see at least [0031, 0035, 0038, 0040-0041] – soil moisture threshold calibration for each soil type… adjust penetration depth by regulating the supply of fluid to the actuators of the implement, thereby adjusting down pressure applied by the actuator as a function of measured soil moisture).
Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose clay content.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: clay content (see at least [0046-0051, 0056-0057] – soil properties such as clay content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Gunzenhauser into the invention of Knobloch with a reasonable expectation of success. Knobloch discloses being able to limit or avoid plugging the ground engaging tool based on the soil type, because the soil type affects the acceptable soil moisture level (Knobloch – [0035]). Gunzenhauser discloses that soil texture and characteristics, such as clay levels, are important components in crop models and precision agriculture which can be used to help improve plant performance and development based on the soil texture (Gunzenhauser – [0004, 0084-0085]). The claims recite “data indicative of determined clay content… wherein the data indicative of a determine clay content of soil within the field includes electrical conductivity data”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Knobloch’s soil moisture sensors already detect electrical conductivity, and therefore the data is indicative of clay content. However, Knobloch does not explicitly disclose “determined clay content”. The examiner is interpreting the limitation “determined clay content” as meaning that the clay content is determined from the data. Gunzenhauser uses electrical conductivity data to determine clay content. Therefore, in light of the teachings of Knobloch and Gunzenhauser, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use the electrical conductivity field sensors of Knobloch to determine clay content.
Regarding claim 2, Knobloch discloses wherein the data indicative of a determined content of soil within the field includes electrical conductivity data (see at least [0029, 0035, 0040-0041]).
Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the data indicative of a determined clay content of soil within the field includes electrical conductivity data.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the data indicative of a determined clay content of soil within the field includes electrical conductivity data (see at least [0046-0051, 0056-0057] – soil electrical conductivity… soil properties such as clay content).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Knobloch discloses wherein the one or more field sensors are positioned forward of the basket assembly (see at least [0028] - soil moisture sensors 102 may output a signal that corresponds to the soil moisture of soil forward of one or more of basket assemblies 54).
Regarding claim 5, Knobloch discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a likelihood of a plugging condition on or within the basket assembly based on the content of the soil within the field and the defined basket actuator position being at a default pressure (see at least [0018, 0028, 0031, 0034, 0038, 0040-0042] – determine that they are likely to become plugged based on the measured soil moisture from the soil moisture sensors or determine that plugging is unlikely… a down pressure).
Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose clay content.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: clay content (see at least [0046-0051, 0056] – soil properties such as clay content).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Knobloch discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to: receive an input related to a user-defined threshold for acceptable material accumulation risk, wherein the defined basket actuator position is based at least partially on whether the determined clay content and output characteristic indicate an elevated risk of material accumulation a probability range of a plugged condition as determined by the content of the soil within the field and the defined output characteristic (see at least [0018, 0028, 0031, 0034, 0038, 0040-0042] – determine that they are likely to become plugged based on the measured soil moisture from the soil moisture sensors or determine that plugging is unlikely… soil moisture threshold calibration for each soil type… adjust penetration depth by regulating the supply of fluid to the actuators of the implement, thereby adjusting down pressure applied by the actuator as a function of measured soil moisture).
Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose clay content.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: clay content (see at least [0046-0051, 0056] – soil properties such as clay content).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Knobloch discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to: receive data indicative of a soil moisture level from the one or more field sensors (see at least [0028-0029] – soil moisture sensors 102).
Regarding claim 9, Knobloch discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine a likelihood of a plugging condition on or within the basket assembly based on the soil moisture level of the soil within the field and the defined basket actuator position being at a default pressure (see at least [0018, 0028, 0031, 0034, 0038, 0042] – determine that they are likely to become plugged based on the measured soil moisture from the soil moisture sensors or determine that plugging is unlikely… adjust penetration depth by regulating the supply of fluid to the actuators of the implement, thereby adjusting down pressure applied by the actuator as a function of measured soil moisture).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch in view of Gunzenhauser and Stanhope (US 2020/0045869 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a user interface, wherein the clay content of the soil is provided to the computing system through the user interface.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: clay content (see at least [0046-0051, 0056] – soil properties such as clay content).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Stanhope, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a user interface, wherein the content of the soil is provided to the computing system through the user interface (see at least [0051, 0055] – operator input… soil composition data from the field… clay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Stanhope into the invention of Knobloch with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to allow the operator to input the soil composition data indicating the soil plasticity to provide consistent planting depth (Stanhope – [0002-0003, 0051, 0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a location device, wherein the clay content of the soil is based at least partially on a position of the implement within the field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated field map.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a location device, wherein the clay content of the soil is based at least partially on a position within the field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated field map (see at least [0055-0056]).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Stanhope, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a location device, wherein the clay content of the soil is based at least partially on a position of the implement within a field, as determined by the location device, and a correlated field map (see at least [0045, 0057] – The system 200 may be configured to determine the moisture content of the soil within the field by referencing a moisture map to determine the moisture content for the soil located relative to the current location of the implement 10 within the field. For example, the controller 202 may receive signals that are indicative of the location of the implement from the location sensor(s) 216 (e.g., GPS receiver). The controller 202 may reference a moisture map that includes the moisture content of the soil at a plurality of locations within the field.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Stanhope into the invention of Knobloch with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to be able to reference the soil moisture or soil content for the soil relative to the current location, which helps provide consistent planting depth (Stanhope – [0002-0003, 0057]).
Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch in view of Gunzenhauser and Casper (US 8,573,319 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a position sensor operably coupled with the basket actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly.
Casper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a position sensor operably coupled with the basket actuator, the position sensor configured to capture data indicative of a detected position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 – a position sensor configured to measure a depth indication of an actual operating depth of a ground-engaging tool and configured to generate a corresponding position signal, a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure indication of an actual operating pressure and configured to generate a corresponding pressure signal, an implement control unit configured to receive the position signal and the pressure signal and configured to control an adjustment device so that the depth indication targets a depth set point that is indicative of the pre-selected operating depth provided that the pressure indication is within a pre-selected pressure range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Casper into the invention of Knobloch with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to maintain a constant position for the ground-engaging tool (Casper – column 1, lines 21-29).
Regarding claim 12, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions to alter the position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator are configured to be generated when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket actuator position.
Casper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions to alter the position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator are configured to be generated when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket actuator position (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 – a position sensor configured to measure a depth indication of an actual operating depth of a ground-engaging tool and configured to generate a corresponding position signal, a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure indication of an actual operating pressure and configured to generate a corresponding pressure signal, an implement control unit configured to receive the position signal and the pressure signal and configured to control an adjustment device so that the depth indication targets a depth set point that is indicative of the pre-selected operating depth provided that the pressure indication is within a pre-selected pressure range).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Casper is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Knobloch discloses a method for operating an agricultural system, the method comprising: receiving, from one or more field sensors, data indicative of an electrical conductivity of soil (see at least [0029] – electrical conductivity sensors); and determining, with a computing system, a determined parameter of soil based at least partially on the electrical conductivity of the soil (see at least [0028-0029] – soil moisture level); and generating, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of a basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator based on the content (see at least [0031, 0035, 0038, 0040-0041] – soil moisture threshold calibration for each soil type… adjust penetration depth by regulating the supply of fluid to the actuators of the implement, thereby adjusting down pressure applied by the actuator as a function of measured soil moisture).
Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose determining, with a computing system, a determined clay content of soil based at least partially on the electrical conductivity of the soil; generating, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of a basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from a defined basket actuator position based on the clay content.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining, with a computing system, a determined clay content of soil based at least partially on the electrical conductivity of the soil (see at least [0046-0051, 0056] – soil properties such as clay content).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Casper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: generating, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of a basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from a defined basket actuator position (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 – a position sensor configured to measure a depth indication of an actual operating depth of a ground-engaging tool and configured to generate a corresponding position signal, a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure indication of an actual operating pressure and configured to generate a corresponding pressure signal, an implement control unit configured to receive the position signal and the pressure signal and configured to control an adjustment device so that the depth indication targets a depth set point that is indicative of the pre-selected operating depth provided that the pressure indication is within a pre-selected pressure range).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Casper is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Knobloch discloses further comprising: receiving, with the computing system, a defined output characteristic; and determining, with the computing system, a defined basket pressure for the defined output characteristic (see at least [0031, 0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: determining, with the computing system, a defined basket actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure.
Casper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining, with the computing system, a defined basket actuator position based at least partially on the defined basket pressure (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 – a position sensor configured to measure a depth indication of an actual operating depth of a ground-engaging tool and configured to generate a corresponding position signal, a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure indication of an actual operating pressure and configured to generate a corresponding pressure signal, an implement control unit configured to receive the position signal and the pressure signal and configured to control an adjustment device so that the depth indication targets a depth set point that is indicative of the pre-selected operating depth provided that the pressure indication is within a pre-selected pressure range).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Casper is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: determining, with a position sensor, a detected position of a basket actuator.
Casper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining, with a position sensor, a detected position of a basket actuator (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 – a position sensor configured to measure a depth indication of an actual operating depth of a ground-engaging tool and configured to generate a corresponding position signal).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Casper is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 18, Knobloch discloses an agricultural system comprising: an implement including a frame assembly (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0022] – implement 10 may include a frame 28); a basket assembly operably coupled with the frame assembly (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0026] – basket assembly 54); a basket actuator operably coupled with the basket assembly and the frame assembly, the basket actuator configured to alter a position of the basket assembly relative to the frame assembly (see at least Figs. 1-3, [0028] – basket actuators 66); one or more field sensors (see at least [0028] – sensors 102); and a computing system communicatively coupled to the basket actuator, the computing system including a processor and associated memory, the memory storing instructions that, when implemented by the processor, configure the computing system to (see at least [0032] – the controller 106 may generally include one or more processor(s) 110 and associated memory devices 112 configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions): receive data indicative of an electrical conductivity of soil; determine a determined content of soil within the field based on the electrical conductivity of the soil; determine a defined basket actuator position based at least partially on the content of the soil within the field; and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator (see at least [0029, 0031, 0035, 0038, 0040-0041] – electrical conductivity… soil moisture threshold calibration for each soil type… adjust penetration depth by regulating the supply of fluid to the actuators of the implement, thereby adjusting down pressure applied by the actuator as a function of measured soil moisture).
Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose a position sensor configured to capture a detected position of the basket assembly; clay content; and generate instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator when the detected position varies from the defined position.
Gunzenhauser, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determine a determined clay content of soil within the field based on the electrical conductivity of the soil (see at least [0046-0051, 0056] – soil electrical conductivity… soil properties such as clay content).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Gunzenhauser is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Casper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a position sensor configured to capture a detected position of the basket assembly (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 – a position sensor configured to measure a depth indication of an actual operating depth of a ground-engaging tool and configured to generate a corresponding position signal); generating, with the computing system, instructions to alter a position of a basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator when a detected basket assembly position varies from the defined basket actuator position (see at least abstract, Fig. 1, claim 1 –an implement control unit configured to receive the position signal and the pressure signal and configured to control an adjustment device so that the depth indication targets a depth set point that is indicative of the pre-selected operating depth provided that the pressure indication is within a pre-selected pressure range).
The motivation to combine Knobloch and Casper is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 20, Knobloch discloses wherein the defined basket actuator position is further based at least in part on a soil moisture level of the soil within the field (see at least [0029, 0031, 0035, 0038, 0040-0041]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch in view of Gunzenhauser, Casper, and Von Loeper (WO 2014/199354 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Knobloch does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a display operably coupled with the computing system, the computing system configured to illustrate information related to at least one of an estimated clay content, a measured field condition, or a defined output characteristic with the basket assembly in various positions relative to the frame assembly.
Von Loeper, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a display operably coupled with the computing system, the computing system configured to illustrate information related to at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) an estimated clay content, a measured field condition (see at least Figs. 1, 8, 25B, page 25, lines 3-10, page 34, lines 8-16), or a defined output characteristic with the basket assembly in various positions relative to the frame assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Von Loeper into the invention of Knobloch with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to make the GUI relevant to the particular user’s specific needs and what is important to a specific user by providing customizable selection of information results (Von Loeper – page 24, lines 1-10 and 25-30).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendments have necessitated a new rejection under 35 U.S.C, 112.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-16 filed 7/14/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (1) that Knobloch and Gunzenhauser fail to disclose one or more field sensors positioned forward of the basket assembly. Applicant further argues (2) that Knobloch and Gunzenhauser fail to disclose one or more field sensors configured to provide data indicative of clay content. Applicant further argues (3) that Knobloch and Gunzenhauser fail to disclose generating instructions to alter a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator when the detected position varies from the defined position as recited in the amended claims. Applicant further argues (4) that a POSITA would not have been motivated to make the modifications. The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
The office action relies upon Knobloch, not Gunzenhauser, to disclose one or more field sensors positioned forward of the basket assembly. In various instances, Knobloch explicitly discloses “a soil moisture sensor positioned forward of the basket assembly” and “soil moisture sensors may be positioned forward of basket assemblies”. See at least abstract, paragraphs [0006-0008, 0032], and claims 1, 7, and 10 of Knobloch.
The office action relies upon the combination of Knobloch and Gunzenhauser to disclose one or more field sensors configured to provide data indicative of clay content. Knobloch discloses one or more field sensors configured to provide data indicative of soil moisture, for example by sensing electrical conductivity. While Gunzenhauser discloses one or more sensors providing data indicative of clay content by sensing electrical conductivity. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To clarify, the claims recite “data indicative of determined clay content… wherein the data indicative of a determine clay content of soil within the field includes electrical conductivity data”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Knobloch’s soil moisture sensors already detect electrical conductivity, and therefore the data is indicative of clay content. However, Knobloch does not explicitly disclose “determined clay content”. The examiner is interpreting the limitation “determined clay content” as meaning that the clay content is determined. Gunzenhauser uses electrical conductivity to determine clay content. Therefore, in light of the teachings of Knobloch and Gunzenhauser, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use the electrical conductivity field sensors of Knobloch to determine clay content.
The examiner does not rely upon Knobloch and Gunzenhauser alone for the limitation regarding altering a position of the basket assembly through actuation of the basket actuator when the detected position varies from the defined position. The office action relies upon the combination of Knobloch and Casper for these limitations. It is noted that these limitations being argued are not present in amended independent claim 1, but are present in amended independent claims 13 and 18.
As clarified above, the claims recite “data indicative of determined clay content… wherein the data indicative of a determine clay content of soil within the field includes electrical conductivity data”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Knobloch’s soil moisture sensors already detect electrical conductivity, and therefore already detect data is indicative of clay content. However, Knobloch does not explicitly disclose “determined clay content”. The examiner is interpreting the limitation “determined clay content” as meaning that the clay content is determined. Gunzenhauser uses electrical conductivity to determine clay content. Therefore, in light of the teachings of Knobloch and Gunzenhauser, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use the electrical conductivity field sensors of Knobloch to determine clay content. The examiner cites paragraphs [0004, 0084-0085] of Gunzenhauser to demonstrate other reasons why it would be advantageous to determine clay content. Gunzenhauser discloses that soil texture and characteristics, such as clay levels, are important components in crop models and precision agriculture which can be used to help improve plant performance and development based on the soil texture.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights