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 Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on December 9, 2025. Claims 1-20
were previously pending, of which claims 1, 8 and 13 have been amended, claims 4 and 19 have been
cancelled, and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-18 and 20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-13 filed October 7, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(f) Interpretations, applicant’s argument was considered but not persuasive. The specific limitations recited for means plus function are not limited by the fact that they are understood in the art but by structure by and could be interpreted by a broad array of possible solutions for performing the stated functions. Therefore, the interpretation is maintained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(b) Rejection , applicant’s amendment has canceled claim 4 recited in the rejection, foregoing the condition. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. $ 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., providing a signal indicative of a status of the ground engaging tool using the power output; and utilizing the signal to determine whether to stop the work vehicle or implement due to a ground engaging tool issue and stopping the work vehicle or implement if so determined) are clearly defined in the prior art and maintained for the rejection below in view of the amended claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the new limitations from the amended claims are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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:
“ground engaging device” in claim 8. A review of the specification shows that it could be tracks 50 or wheels 55 that support the frame 17 above a surface 57 in [0019].
“first piezoelectric device” in claims 1, 5, 8, 12 and 13. A review of the specification shows that it part of a power supply 250 and comprises a first mass 270 positioned at a first position 275 in [0031].
“second piezoelectric device” in claims 1, 5, 8, 12 and 13. A review of the specification shows that it part of a power supply 250 and comprises a first mass 270 positioned at a first position 275 in [0031].
“data storage device” in claims 8 and 13. A review of the specification shows that it is part of a controller 220 and includes the tangible, non-transitory memory on which are recorded computer-executable instructions in [0033].
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldinger et al., DE102008017572A1 (Hereinafter, “Baldinger”), in view of Andosca et al., US 20100072759 A1 (Hereinafter, “Andosca”).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 13 Baldinger discloses a work vehicle configured to move an implement, the work vehicle comprising: a work vehicle frame(19); at least one ground engaging device(18) coupled to the work vehicle frame and configured to support the work vehicle frame above a surface; an implement coupled to the work vehicle, the implement comprising a ground engaging tool; a sensor(9) positioned adjacent the ground engaging tool, the sensor configured for providing a signal indicative of a ground engaging tool status; a power supply (4) coupled to the implement and electrically coupled to the sensor for providing power thereto, the power supply comprising; See at least [0001], “The present invention relates to an agricultural machine, in particular a field and/or soil cultivation device in the form of a haymaking machine, seed drill, mower, loading wagon and similar attachment, with at least one electrical consumer, preferably in the form of a sensor device for detecting an operating parameter and/or a data processing device, and with an electrical power supply device for supplying the consumer with electrical current.”
a controller communicatively coupled to the sensor, the controller comprising a data storage device and an electronic data processor, the data storage device configured for storing instructions that are executable by the electronic data processor to cause the electronic data processor to: receive the signal indicative of the ground engaging tool status, and determine whether to stop the work vehicle or implement due to a ground engaging tool issue and stopping the work vehicle or implement if so determined. See at least [0016], “the invention, in particular at least one sensor and/or at least one microcontroller can be supplied with power from the piezo element. In particular, a wirelessly communicating sensor network can advantageously be supplied with power from at least one piezo element, which has a plurality of sensors that communicate wirelessly with a microcontroller for detecting operating parameters … the piezo element can be connected to a signal evaluation device which evaluates the supply current provided by the piezo element.” And [0018], “the supply current of the piezo element can be used by the signal evaluation device for a preventive damage analysis, with the help of which damage to the machine component carrying the piezo element caused by the vibrations or to the machine component damaged by other influences can be determined early.” Also in [0024], “Depending on the operating parameters detected by the sensor device 2, a data processing device 3, in particular in the form of a job computer comprising a microcontroller 10, controls various actuators (i.e. stop the implement).”It would have been obvious that controlling the actuators would include stopping the operation of the implement.
Baldinger does not explicitly recite the mass loading of the piezoelectric device. However, Andosca teaches this limitation:
a first piezoelectric device comprising a first mass positioned at a first position, at least one of the first mass and the first position adjusted to provide a power output at a first end of a frequency range; and a second piezoelectric device comprising a second mass positioned at a second position, the second piezoelectric device electrically coupled to the first piezoelectric device for providing the power output, at least one of the second mass and the second position adjusted to provide the power output at a second end of the frequency range; See at least [0026-0028], “Referring now to the drawings, FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a piezoelectric vibrational energy harvester (PVEH) unit 100 made in accordance with concepts of the present disclosure. As those skilled in the art will appreciate, such a PVEH unit may be used to generate electrical power from scavenged vibrational energy in the ambient environment in which the PVEH unit is mounted or otherwise placed … With continuing reference to FIG. 1, and also to FIG. 2A, at a high level, PVEH unit 100 of this example includes sixteen PVEH modules 104A-P (one of which, module 104C, is shown in detail in FIG. 2A) …. In this example, the differing tunings are provided by changing the active lengths L.sub.A through L.sub.F of PVEH beams 204A-F, respectively, as seen in FIG. 2A.” Finally in [0037], “FIG. 3 is a frequency spectrum 300 for a conventional rectangular-cross-sectioned cantilever PVEH beam having a width that is much greater than its thickness … Consequently, and considering only the first harmonic, frequency spectrum 300 has only a fundamental resonance frequency peak 300A, here at 120 Hz.+-.2 Hz, due to first bending mode excitation in the ZX-plane and a first harmonic frequency peak 300B, here at 751.2 Hz.+-.2 Hz, due to second mode excitation also in the ZX plane, each due to a driving vibration in the ZX-plane.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger’s device with the data storage limitation disclosed in Andosca with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to tune the device to maximize the sensitivity, see Andosca [Abstract].
Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Baldinger discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1 and 13:
wherein the signal is provided by employing a wireless communication. See at least [0016], “In particular, a wirelessly communicating sensor network can advantageously be supplied with power from at least one piezo element, which has a plurality of sensors that communicate wirelessly with a microcontroller for detecting operating parameters. In this case, a decentralized power supply can advantageously be provided directly at the sensors using several piezo elements, so that long cabling can be dispensed with.”
Regarding Claims 5, 9 and 20, Baldinger discloses the following limitation dependent on Claims 1, 8 and 13:
further comprising a power storage electrically coupled to the first piezoelectric device and the second piezoelectric device. See at least [0015], “ The electrical current generated by the piezo element is first fed into the electrical buffer storage, from which the electrical consumer is then fed.”
Regarding Claim 10, Baldinger discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the work vehicle comprises a tractor. See at least Fig.1 and [0024], “The loading wagon 11 can be attached in a manner known per se via a drawbar 7 to a tractor 16 by which the loading wagon is pulled.”
Regarding Claim 12, Baldinger does not disclose the electrical connection of the sensor. However, Andosca teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 8:
wherein the first piezoelectric device and the second piezoelectric device are electrically coupled in series or parallel. See at least [0033], “As those skilled in the art will understand, PME modules can be electrically connected to one another in either series or parallel, depending on the particular deployment of PVEH unit 100.” Also in [0035], “PME PVEH beams electrically connected together in series and produces 0.2 V and 100 mW of power. In this example, all of the PVEH modules in each PVEH module are electrically connected in series so as to maximize the voltage across the respective output nodes. “
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger’s device with the electrical limitation disclosed in Andosca with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to maximize voltage, see Andosca [0035].
Claims 3, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldinger in view of Andosca, in further view of Foster et al., US2018/0319396 A1 (Hereinafter, “Foster”)
Regarding Claim 3, Baldinger in view of Andosca does not disclose a specific wireless frequency. However, Foster teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 2:
wherein the wireless communication has a frequency of 2.4 GHz. See at least [0027], “For example, in certain embodiments, the transceiver 60 may broadcast and receive radio waves within a frequency range of about 1 GHz to about 10 GHz. In addition, the transceiver 60 may utilize any suitable communication protocol, such as a standard protocol (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) or a proprietary protocol.” Note: Bluetooth is a known protocol that uses 2.4 GHz frequency and a low power radio.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger’s device with the wireless communication limitation disclosed in Foster with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize standard wireless equipment to be provided to the control system, see Foster [0027].
Regarding Claim 6, 11 and 15, Baldinger in view of Andosca does not disclose a specific ground engaging tools. However, Foster teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1, 8 and 13:
wherein the implement comprises a tillage implement and the ground engaging tool comprises a tillage shank, a rolling basket, or a disk. See at least [0028], “the implement controller/control system may instruct actuator(s) to reduce or increase the penetration depth of each tillage point on a tilling implement, or the implement controller/control system may instruct actuator(s) to engage or disengage each opener disc/blade of a seeding/planting implement from the soil.“
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger’s device with the specific ground engaging tools disclosed in Foster with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to define what tools are available to the control system, see Foster [0028].
Regarding Claim 7, Baldinger does not disclose low power radio. However, Foster teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the wireless communication comprises a low power radio. See at least [0027], “For example, in certain embodiments, the transceiver 60 may broadcast and receive radio waves within a frequency range of about 1 GHz to about 10 GHz. In addition, the transceiver 60 may utilize any suitable communication protocol, such as a standard protocol (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc.) or a proprietary protocol.” Note: Bluetooth is a well-known form of low-power radio.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger’s device with the wireless communication limitation disclosed in Foster with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve power use, see Foster [0027].
Regarding Claim 14, Baldinger does not disclose stopping work. However, Foster teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 13:
wherein the implement is coupled to the work vehicle for movement and if the data processor determines that the ground engaging tool status is an inoperable status, the electronic data processor provides a signal to the work vehicle to stop the implement from operating. See at least [0025], “In the illustrated embodiment, the control system 36 includes a user interface 54 communicatively coupled to the controller 48 … the user interface 54 may include a battery cut-off switch, an engine ignition switch, a stop button, or a combination thereof, among other controls. In certain embodiments, the user interface 54 includes a display 56 configured to present information to the operator, such as a graphical representation of a guidance swath … a visual representation of certain parameter(s) associated with operation of the agricultural implement coupled to the autonomous work vehicle (e.g., seed level, penetration depth of ground engaging tools, orientation(s)/position(s) of certain components of the implement, etc.), or a combination thereof, among other information.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger’s device with the inoperable status signal limitation disclosed in Foster with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to control operating parameters in real time , see Foster [0025].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldinger in view of Andosca, in further view of Rife et al., WO2016010516A1 (Hereinafter, “Rife”).
Regarding Claim 16, Baldinger in view of Foster does not disclose the motor grader equipment. However Rife teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 13:
wherein the work vehicle comprises a motor grader, the implement comprises a ripper, and the ground engaging tool comprises a ripper shank. See at least [p. 4, lines 21-22]: Motor Grader 10, the agricultural or construction implement comprises a ripper. Also [p.4, lines 21-22]: “As shown in FIG.1 and FIG. 2, the construction machinery according to the present invention comprises a ripping tool (300) attached to the rear of a motor grater (M).”), and the ground engaging tool comprises a ripper shank in [p. 5, lines 5-7]: “The ripper (320) and the scarifier (340) consists of a shank (303) . . ..”).
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger and Andosca’s device with the motor grader with a work implement that is a ripper limitation disclosed in Rife with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to have the ability to “dig up or tear up asphalt”, see Rife [p. 7, lines 8-10].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldinger in view of Andosca, in further view of Harmon et al., US2020/0390023A1 (Hereinafter, “Harmon”).
Regarding Claim 17, Baldinger in view of Andosca does not disclose a shear bolt. However Harmon teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 13:
wherein the ground engaging tool status comprises the presence or absence of a shear bolt. See at least [0018], “In general, the present subject matter is directed to systems and methods for monitoring the operational status of ground-engaging tools of an agricultural implement. Specifically, in several embodiments, the disclosed system may be utilized to monitor the operational status of ground-engaging tools, such as shanks, configured to be pivotably coupled to a frame of an agricultural implement, in which a shear pin or bolt extends through the tool to prevent pivoting of the tool relative to the frame or a component attached to the frame during normal loading conditions.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Baldinger and Andosca’s device with the shear bolt limitation disclosed in Harmon with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the ground engaging tools, see Harmon [0003].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669