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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: depth T, coulter pressure control R, smooth running L, limit value FG , and mean value FM. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9 (line 13) “Fig. 14” should read “Fig. 4”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 1) “M A method” should read “A method”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the difference" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of "a difference" in claim 2 or in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Regarding claim 12, Claim 2 recites the limitation " a cache memory" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is prior mention of " a cache memory" in the claim, therefore it is unclear whether the second mention of a cache memory is the same cache memory as the first mention of a cache memory. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that the second mention of the cache memory is the same cache memory as the first mention of a cache memory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al. (US2016/0165789A1) in view of Henry et al. (US2015/0012189A1) in further view of Wonderlich et al. (US2020/0344944A1), hereinafter Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Gervais teaches MA_method for controlling wherein the method comprises (see at least [0021] “Agricultural seeding system 10 includes a tractor 12, an air cart 14, and an agricultural implement, such as a seed implement or drill 16...The drill 16 may include a tool bar 18 to which a row unit 20 is coupled. By way of example, row unit 20 may include a set of disc-style openers 21. Each disc-style opener 21 includes a disc 22 designed to cut a furrow into the soil.”): pressing the running wheel via the seed coulter see at least [0028] “As noted above, the pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 sets the amount of down pressure that is applied on the disc 22...The down pressure applied by the cylinder 52, together with the weight of the row unit 20, forces the disc 22 into the planting surface so that the furrow is cut at the user selected depth.” also see at least [0024] and [0037]), and moving the running wheel see at least [0006] “Data is collected from sensors related to the opener assembly for seeders, such as for discs and hoe drills, in order to better determine how the opener assembly reacts while operating in various conditions and to more precisely control operation of the opener assembly.” and [0008] “Sensors may detect and/or measure a variety of characteristics, including frame acceleration, opener acceleration, frame angle, shank angle, hydraulic pressure, and/or loads or forces, such as between the gauge wheel and ground.”).
Examiner interprets that a coulter unit is encompassed at least by drill 16, a seed coulter is encompassed at least by row unit 20, and a running wheel is encompassed at least by disc-style opener 21 including a disc 22.
Gervais does not explicitly teach but suggests wherein the coulter force see at least [0006] “Data is collected from sensors related to the opener assembly for seeders, such as for discs and hoe drills, in order to better determine how the opener assembly reacts while operating in various conditions and to more precisely control operation of the opener assembly.” and [0008] “Sensors may detect and/or measure a variety of characteristics, including frame acceleration, opener acceleration, frame angle, shank angle, hydraulic pressure, and/or loads or forces, such as between the gauge wheel and ground.”) and a bandwidth see at least [0006] “a control system and a sensor array are utilized to provide automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range)”).
Examiner interprets that bandwidth is suggested at least by user specified range.
Henry more explicitly teaches moving the running wheel wherein the coulter force see at least [0041] “FIG. 5 is an exemplary graph 106 of force applied to an element of the row unit of FIG. 2. In the illustrated graph 106, the x-axis 108 is representative of time, and the y-axis 110 is representative of force. In addition, a curve 112 represents a contact force on an element (e.g., opener, closing disk, etc.) of the row unit as a function of time.”) and suggests a bandwidth see at least [0042] “The graph 106 also includes a maximum threshold force 118, and a minimum threshold force 120. The maximum threshold force 118 corresponds to an upper bound of a desired soil finish smoothness range. That is, operating the row unit such that the element experiences a force greater than the maximum threshold force 118 may result in an undesirably rough soil finish. Conversely, the minimum threshold force 120 corresponds to a lower bound of a desired soil finish smoothness range. That is, operating the row unit such that the element experiences a force less than the minimum threshold force 120 may result in an undesirably smooth soil finish. Because the peaks 114 and 116 of the curve 112 are between the minimum and maximum threshold forces, a force profile corresponding to the curve 112 establishes a soil finish having a desired smoothness.”).
Examiner interprets that bandwidth is encompassed at least by smoothness range.
Wonderlich more explicitly teaches a bandwidth see at least [0022] “The algorithm can be programmed to measure resultant downforce, for example at the downforce adjustment mechanism 174 or elsewhere on the row unit 118, and to continuously make adjustments to the downforce as needed (e.g., creating a closed loop). It should also be appreciated that the target downforce value can be a range of values defining a control band in which downforce is to be maintained. The input of step 298 can be an input to the control valve 37 of FIG. 4, which in turn effects the downforce actuator adjustment of step 302. The controller 178 may also provide an input to the pump 35, controlling an operation and/or output thereof.”).
Examiner interprets that bandwidth of the coulter force curve is encompassed at least by control band.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gervais of a method for controlling smooth running of a coulter unit comprising a seed coulter and a running wheel, wherein the method comprises: pressing the running wheel via the seed coulter with an adjustable coulter pressure onto an agricultural area in order to generate a seed furrow, and moving the running wheel over the agricultural area at a travel speed, during which a coulter force acting on the coulter unit is measured and the suggested teaching of wherein the coulter force is captured over a measuring interval to determine a coulter force curve over time and a bandwidth of the coulter force curve is used as a controlled variable for controlling the smooth running with the more explicit teaching of moving the running wheel over the agricultural area at a travel speed, during which a coulter force acting on the coulter unit is measured, wherein the coulter force is captured over a measuring interval to determine a coulter force curve over time found in Henry, the suggested teaching of a bandwidth of the coulter force curve is used as a controlled variable for controlling the smooth running found in Henry, and the more explicit teaching of a bandwidth of the coulter force curve is used as a controlled variable for controlling the smooth running found in Wonderlich. One could combine the teaching in order to have a method for controlling smooth running of a coulter unit comprising a seed coulter and a running wheel, wherein the method comprises: pressing the running wheel via the seed coulter with an adjustable coulter pressure onto an agricultural area in order to generate a seed furrow, and moving the running wheel over the agricultural area at a travel speed, during which a coulter force acting on the coulter unit is measured, determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to
Gervais teaches wherein the smooth running see at least [0030] “The controller 314 receives the electrical output signals and determines whether to open or close a valve 316 as needed to adjust pressure in the cylinder 52 (or other hydraulic cylinders applying down pressure in alternative disc opener arrangements, such as where a cylinder applies pressure to a gang of multiple openers to compress an individual spring connected to each opener an individual spring connected to each opener), and hence, the hydraulic down pressure force on the disc 22 of a corresponding row unit 20.” also see at least [0006] “a control system and a sensor array are utilized to provide automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds to substantially maintain a relatively constant seed depth.”).
Examiner interprets that control loop is encompassed at least by continuous down pressure adjustments and coulter pressure is encompassed at least by down pressure and/or pressure.
Wonderlich more explicitly teaches a control loop (see at least [0022] “The algorithm can be programmed to measure resultant downforce, for example at the downforce adjustment mechanism 174 or elsewhere on the row unit 118, and to continuously make adjustments to the downforce as needed (e.g., creating a closed loop).”).
Examiner interprets that control loop is encompassed at least by continuously make adjustments and/or closed loop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gervais of wherein the smooth running is controlled via a control loop comprising a controlled systemWonderlich. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the smooth running is controlled via a control loop comprising a controlled system with the coulter pressure as manipulated variable with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais suggests wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area see at least [0029] “the amount of down force applied by the hydraulic cylinder 52 is substantially controlled by the controller 314 to maintain a desired seed depth and furrow formation without overstressing the gauge wheel and its related components at a variety of travel speeds conventional for an implement and under a variety of field conditions.”) and/or the travel speed see at least [0006] “seeding speed and/or tractor speed may also be parameters controlled via the sensor feedback according to a certain user specified range of sensor variation.”) and/or at least one coulter parameter are taken into account as disturbances (see at least [0037] “Flaying multiple sensors of varying types may allow for more resolution of the opener operation. Generally, if the amount of down pressure applied by the cylinder 52 is excessive, the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 52 on the disc 22 will force the disc 22 farther into the planting surface, or force too much pressure on the gauge wheel which can deform the furrow being created by the opener, thereby resulting in deformation, e.g., slight bending, of the gauge wheel arm 58. This deformation of the gauge wheel arm 58 is detected by one or more of the various sensors, such as the load cell 78. On the other hand, if the down pressure applied by the cylinder 52 is insufficient to hold the disc 22 at the desired furrow cutting depth, a reverse bending of the gauge wheel arm 58 will occur and be detected by the one or more various sensors, such as the load cell 78.” also see at least [0056]).
Examiner interprets that at least one parameter of the utilizable area is suggested at least by a variety of field conditions, the travel speed is suggested at least by seeding speed and/or tractor speed, and at least one coulter parameter is suggested at least by deformation, e.g., slight bending, of the gauge wheel arm.
However, Henry more explicitly teaches wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area see at least [0021] “the smoothness of the soil finish behind the row unit is at least partially dependent on the soil conditions (e.g., moisture content, soil composition, etc.) and the speed of the implement.”).
Examiner interprets that at least one parameter of the utilizable area is encompassed at least by soil conditions (e.g., moisture content, soil composition, etc.) and the travel speed is encompassed at least by the speed of the implement.
However, Wonderlich more explicitly teaches wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area see at least [0005] “A controller is programmed to adjust a row cleaner engagement setting in response to a detected travel speed of the row unit.” also see at least [0022] “This downforce control algorithm can be programmed to calculate the appropriate target downforce value (e.g., based on various soil conditions, travel speed, etc.),”).
Examiner interprets that at least one parameter of the utilizable area is encompassed at least by soil conditions and the travel speed is encompassed at least by travel speed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Gervais of wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area and/or the travel speed and/or at least one coulter parameter are taken into account as disturbances with the teaching of wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area and/or the travel speed are taken into account as disturbances found in Henry and the teaching of wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area and/or the travel speed are taken into account as disturbances found in Wonderlich. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein at least one parameter of the utilizable area and/or the travel speed and/or at least one coulter parameter are taken into account as disturbances with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amened) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais teaches wherein a limit value see at least [0006] “a control system and a sensor array are utilized to provide automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds to substantially maintain a relatively constant seed depth…seeding speed and/or tractor speed may also be parameters controlled via the sensor feedback according to a certain user specified range of sensor variation.” and [0038] “the various sensors provide the controller 314 with the electrical output signals, as heretofore described. The controller 314 compares the sensor data from the electrical output signals to a range of "no-action" values. That is, if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed within the range of "no-action" values set for the particular sensor,”).
Examiner interprets that limit value of the coulter force is encompassed at least by down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) and/or range of "no-action" values and the travel speed is encompassed at least by speeds, seeding speed, and/or tractor speed.
However, Wonderlich more explicitly teaches wherein a limit value see at least [0022] “With reference to FIG. 3, from the start of operation of the seed machine 10, the travel speed sensor 190 measures travel speed of the seed machine 10 and reports the travel speed signal to the controller 178…the method continues with step 282 in which an algorithm of the controller 178 is used for determining row unit downforce (e.g., a target downforce value)…downforce control algorithm can be programmed to calculate the appropriate target downforce value (e.g., based on various soil conditions, travel speed, etc.), but may also be manually overridden with a specific command from an operator. The algorithm can be programmed to measure resultant downforce, for example at the downforce adjustment mechanism 174 or elsewhere on the row unit 118, and to continuously make adjustments to the downforce as needed (e.g., creating a closed loop). It should also be appreciated that the target downforce value can be a range of values defining a control band in which downforce is to be maintained.”).
Examiner interprets that limit value of the coulter force is encompassed at least by target downforce value can be a range of values defining a control band in which downforce is to be maintained and the travel speed is encompassed at least by travel speed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gervais of wherein a limit value of the coulter force and/or the travel speed are used as a condition, for the controller with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Wonderlich. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method a limit value of the coulter force and/or the travel speed are used as a condition, in particular for the controller with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais suggests wherein the coulter pressure or equal to the limit value see at least [0039] “However, if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed by the various sensors are outside the range of "no-action" values, the controller 314 will adjust, e.g., increase or decrease, the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 52 on the disc 22. The range of "no action" values is of sufficient size to avoid the constant changing of the hydraulic pressure exerted by cylinder 52, but avoids undesirable over-force or under-force on the disc 22.”).
Examiner interprets that if the bandwidth is greater than the limit value of the bandwidth and the coulter force is less than or equal to the limit value of the coulter force is suggested at least by if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed by the various sensors are outside the range of "no-action" values and coulter pressure is increased to improve the smooth running is suggested at least by adjust, e.g., increase or decrease, the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 52 on the disc 22.
Henry suggests wherein the coulter pressure or equal to the limit value see at least [0042] “The graph 106 also includes a maximum threshold force 118, and a minimum threshold force 120. The maximum threshold force 118 corresponds to an upper bound of a desired soil finish smoothness range. That is, operating the row unit such that the element experiences a force greater than the maximum threshold force 118 may result in an undesirably rough soil finish. Conversely, the minimum threshold force 120 corresponds to a lower bound of a desired soil finish smoothness range.” and [0044] “Furthermore, the graph 106 includes a third force curve 128 having a first peak 130 and a second peak 132. As illustrated, the contact force corresponding to the peaks 130 and 132 is less than the minimum threshold force 120. Accordingly, if such a contact force profile is detected, the implement controller may instruct the work vehicle to increase the towing speed of the implement, and/or increase an angle of the opener to establish the desired soil finish. Once the desired soil finish is established, the contact force may be increased above the minimum threshold force 120.”).
Examiner interprets that the coulter pressure is increased is suggested at least by increase the towing speed of the implement, and/or increase an angle of the opener to establish the desired soil finish. Once the desired soil finish is established, the contact force may be increased above the minimum threshold force 120, the limit value of the bandwidth is suggested at least by desired soil finish smoothness range, limit value of the coulter force is suggested at least by a minimum threshold force 120, and if the bandwidth is greater than the limit value of the bandwidth and the coulter force is less than or equal to the limit value of the coulter force is suggested at least by the contact force corresponding to the peaks 130 and 132 is less than the minimum threshold force 120.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Gervais of wherein the coulter pressure is increased to improve the smooth running if the bandwidth is greater than the limit value of the bandwidth and the coulter force is less than or equal to the limit value of the coulter force with the suggested teaching of the same found in Henry. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the coulter pressure is increased to improve the smooth running if the bandwidth is greater than the limit value of the bandwidth and the coulter force is less than or equal to the limit value of the coulter force with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]). One would have been further motivated to do so in order to establish a desired smoothness across a field and thereby enhance the accuracy of seed placement and improving crop development (see at least Henry, [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais suggests wherein a deceleration signal see at least [0006] “control system and a sensor array are utilized to provide automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds to substantially maintain a relatively constant seed depth...seeding speed and/or tractor speed may also be parameters controlled via the sensor feedback according to a certain user specified range of sensor variation.”).
Examiner interprets that deceleration signal for reducing the travel speed is suggested at least by controlling seeding speed and/or tractor speed “seeding speed and/or tractor speed may also be parameters controlled via the sensor feedback according to a certain user specified range of sensor variation” and if the coulter force is greater than the limit value of the coulter force is suggested at least by automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds.
Henry more explicitly teaches wherein a deceleration signal (see at least [0043] “The graph 106 also includes a second force curve 122 having a first peak 124 and a second peak 126. As illustrated, the contact force corresponding to the peaks 124 and 126 is greater than the maximum threshold force 118. Accordingly, if such a contact force profile is detected, the implement controller may instruct the work vehicle to decrease the towing speed of the implement, and/or decrease an angle of the opener to establish the desired soil finish. Once the desired soil finish is established, the contact force may be reduced below the maximum threshold force 118.”).
Examiner interprets that a deceleration signal for reducing the travel speed is encompassed at least by implement controller may instruct the work vehicle to decrease the towing speed of the implement and if the coulter force is greater than the limit value of the coulter force is encompassed at least by the contact force corresponding to the peaks 124 and 126 is greater than the maximum threshold force 118.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Gervais of wherein a deceleration signal for reducing the travel speed is generated if the coulter force is greater than the limit value of the coulter force with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Henry. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein a deceleration signal for reducing the travel speed is generated if the coulter force is greater than the limit value of the coulter force with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]). One would have been further motivated to do so in order to establish a desired smoothness across a field and thereby enhance the accuracy of seed placement and improving crop development (see at least Henry, [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais suggests wherein an acceleration signal see at least [0006] “control system and a sensor array are utilized to provide automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds to substantially maintain a relatively constant seed depth...seeding speed and/or tractor speed may also be parameters controlled via the sensor feedback according to a certain user specified range of sensor variation.”).
Examiner interprets that acceleration signal for increasing the travel speed is suggested at least by controlling seeding speed and/or tractor speed “seeding speed and/or tractor speed may also be parameters controlled via the sensor feedback according to a certain user specified range of sensor variation” and if the coulter force is smaller than the limit value of the coulter force and the bandwidth is smaller than the limit value of the bandwidth is suggested at least by automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds.
However, Henry suggests wherein an acceleration signal see at least [0044] “Furthermore, the graph 106 includes a third force curve 128 having a first peak 130 and a second peak 132. As illustrated, the contact force corresponding to the peaks 130 and 132 is less than the minimum threshold force 120. Accordingly, if such a contact force profile is detected, the implement controller may instruct the work vehicle to increase the towing speed of the implement, and/or increase an angle of the opener to establish the desired soil finish. Once the desired soil finish is established, the contact force may be increased above the minimum threshold force 120. By automatically controlling the surface finish, the control system may establish a desired smoothness across a field, thereby enhancing the accuracy of seed placement, and improving crop development.”).
Examiner interprets that an acceleration signal for increasing the travel speed is encompassed at least by implement controller may instruct the work vehicle to increase the towing speed of the implement and if the coulter force is smaller than the limit value of the coulter force and the bandwidth is smaller than the limit value of the bandwidth is suggested at least by the contact force corresponding to the peaks 130 and 132 is less than the minimum threshold force 120.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Gervais of wherein an acceleration signal for increasing the travel speed is generated if the coulter force is smaller than the limit value of the coulter force and the bandwidth is smaller than the limit value of the bandwidth with the suggested teaching of the same found in Henry. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have a method wherein an acceleration signal for increasing the travel speed is generated if the coulter force is smaller than the limit value of the coulter force and the bandwidth is smaller than the limit value of the bandwidth with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]). One would have been further motivated to do so in order to establish a desired smoothness across a field and thereby enhance the accuracy of seed placement and improving crop development (see at least Henry, [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais teaches wherein the coulter force see at least [0036] “A hydraulic sensor 100 of sensor array 311 is connected to the cylinder 52 via pressure line 101. The hydraulic sensor 100 may take the form of a hydraulic force transducer which, generates an electrical signal whose magnitude is proportional to the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 52 on the disc 22.” also see at least [0031]) arranged a rotation axis see at least [0046] “The control system 410 includes a sensor array 411 having one or more sensors (e.g. a load cell 278, a second load cell 279, a frame accelerometer 290, an opener accelerometer 292, first and second inclinometers 294 and 296, respectively, and/or a hydraulic sensor 300, as hereinafter described). Actual mounting locations of the one or more sensors could include, for example, a lever arm mounted on a pivot point or a torsion/strain meter on a packer wheel axle.”).
Examiner interprets that coulter force is encompassed at least by hydraulic down pressure force, force sensor is encompassed at least by hydraulic sensor 100, and arranged on a rotation axis of the running wheel is encompassed at least by mounting locations of the one or more sensors could include, for example, torsion/strain meter on a packer wheel axle.
Regarding claim 15, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais suggests wherein the coulter unit is swiveled about a swivel axis see at least [0044] “A packer arm 236, including a packer wheel 238, is pivotably coupled to the packer support structure 234. The packer wheel 238 rotates along the soil surface to both pack the soil on top of deposited seeds and limit the penetration depth of the opener 232. As illustrated, a pin 240 disposed through openings within the packer arm 236 and the packer support structure 234 enables rotation of the packer arm 236 with respect to the packer support structure 234. However, in a working mode, rotation of the packer arm 236 relative to the packer support structure 234 is blocked by a depth adjustment assembly 242. The depth adjustment assembly 242 includes a fastener 244, a slot 246 within the packer arm 236, and a slot 248 within the packer support structure 234. The fastener 244 is movable within the slots 246 and 248 to adjust the penetration depth 252. Specifically, movement of the fastener 244 along the slots 246 and 248 will cause the packer arm 236 to rotate about the pin 240 in the direction 254. As the packer arm 236 rotates, the vertical position of the opener 232 varies with respect to the packer wheel 238. Because the packer wheel 238 is configured to rotate across the top of the soil 250, varying the vertical position of the opener 232 with respect to the wheel 238 varies the penetration depth 252 of the opener 232 within the soil 250.”).
Examiner interprets that a swivel axis is encompassed at least by a pin 240 and adjust the coulter pressure is suggested by varying the vertical position of the opener 232 with respect to the wheel 238 varies the penetration depth 252 of the opener 232 within the soil 250.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Gervais of wherein the coulter unit is swiveled about a swivel axis to adjust the coulter pressure to more explicitly teach a method wherein the coulter unit is swiveled about a swivel axis to adjust the coulter pressure with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]).
Regarding claim 16, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 15 as detailed above.
Gervais teaches wherein the coulter unit further comprises a swivel support (see at least [0041] “The tow bar assembly 212 is coupled to a tool bar 214 which supports multiple tool frames 216.” also see at least Fig.4).
Examiner interprets that swivel support is encompassed at least by tool bar 214 and one or more coulter units is encompassed at least by tool frames 216.
Regarding claim 17, (Currently Amended) Gervais teaches A Sowing machine for spreading seed see at least [0041] “The agricultural implement 210 includes...multiple tool frames 216.”), each coulter unit comprising a seed coulter see at least [0041] “Each tool frame 216 includes multiple seeding implements, such as the illustrated row units 218 ”)for generating a seed furrow see at least [0028] “As noted above, the pressure in the hydraulic cylinder 52 sets the amount of down pressure that is applied on the disc 22...The down pressure applied by the cylinder 52, together with the weight of the row unit 20, forces the disc 22 into the planting surface so that the furrow is cut at the user selected depth.” also see at least [0024] and [0037]), see at least [0029] “a sensor array 311 having one or more sensors (e.g. a load cell 78, a frame accelerometer 90, an opener accelerometer 92, first, second and/or third inclinometers 94, 96, 98, and/or a hydraulic sensor 100, as hereinafter described)” ), and see at least [0029] “the controller 314 to control the flow of hydraulic fluid to or from the hydraulic cylinder 52, and thus, the amount of down pressure force applied on the disc 22. More specifically, the amount of down force applied by the hydraulic cylinder 52 is substantially controlled by the controller 314 to maintain a desired seed depth and furrow formation without overstressing the gauge wheel and its related components at a variety of travel speeds conventional for an implement and under a variety of field conditions.”), wherein the smooth running the method of claim 1 which is taught by the combination Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich as detailed above.
Examiner interprets that sowing machine is encompassed at least by seeding system 10 and/or agricultural implement 210, coulter unit is encompassed at least by drill 16 and/or tool frame 216, seed coulter is encompassed at least by row unit 20 and/or row units 218, running wheel is encompassed at least by disc 22, force sensors are encompassed at least by load cell 78 and/or a hydraulic sensor 100, and control unit is encompassed at least by controller 314.
Regarding claim 18, (New) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teach the sowing machine of claim 17 as detailed above.
Gervais teaches wherein the force sensors measure a coulter force acting on the running wheels (see at least [0036] “A hydraulic sensor 100 of sensor array 311 is connected to the cylinder 52 via pressure line 101. The hydraulic sensor 100 may take the form of a hydraulic force transducer which, generates an electrical signal whose magnitude is proportional to the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 52 on the disc 22.”).
Examiner interprets that force sensors is encompassed at least by hydraulic sensor 100 and coulter force acting on the running wheels is encompassed at least by hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 52 on the disc 22.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al. (US2016/0165789A1) in view of Henry et al. (US2015/0012189A1) in view of Wonderlich et al. (US2020/0344944A1) in further view of Shi et al. (US2014/0223615A1), hereinafter Gervais, Henry, Wonderlich, and Shi respectively.
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais does not explicitly teach wherein the bandwidth
Wonderlich teaches the bandwidth (see at least [0022] “With reference to FIG. 3, from the start of operation of the seed machine 10, the travel speed sensor 190 measures travel speed of the seed machine 10 and reports the travel speed signal to the controller 178. Meanwhile, for example (and simultaneously with step 272), the acceleration sensor or sensors 148 generates signals (e.g., based on measured acceleration) at step 274, and corresponding acceleration signals are sent to the controller 178, which at step 278 receives the signals. With reference to the center column of FIG. 3, the method continues with step 282 in which an algorithm of the controller 178 is used for determining row unit downforce (e.g., a target downforce value). The target downforce value can be calculated by the controller 178 based on one or both of the signals from steps 272 and 274. From the algorithm, the controller 178 generates an input for the downforce system having the adjustment mechanism 174 at step 298, and this effects a downforce adjustment at step 302. This downforce control algorithm can be programmed to calculate the appropriate target downforce value (e.g., based on various soil conditions, travel speed, etc.), but may also be manually overridden with a specific command from an operator. The algorithm can be programmed to measure resultant downforce, for example at the downforce adjustment mechanism 174 or elsewhere on the row unit 118, and to continuously make adjustments to the downforce as needed (e.g., creating a closed loop). It should also be appreciated that the target downforce value can be a range of values defining a control band in which downforce is to be maintained. The input of step 298 can be an input to the control valve 37 of FIG. 4, which in turn effects the downforce actuator adjustment of step 302. The controller 178 may also provide an input to the pump 35, controlling an operation and/or output thereof.”).
Examiner interprets that bandwidth is encompassed at least by control band.
However, Shi more explicitly teaches wherein the bandwidth see at least [0166] “In FIGS. 22A and 22B, the AFM is operated to modulate Z at an amplitude small enough (e.g., sub-nanometer) to make sure that tip-sample interaction always stays in the repulsive force zone (Small Amplitude Repulsive Force Mode), i.e., a few nanometers away from surface. This is accomplished by using either peak-to-peak force difference (Fa - Fb), corresponding to the peak-to-peak Z modulation),”).
Examiner interprets that bandwidth is determined from the difference between a maximum force and a minimum force of the force curve is encompassed at least by peak-to-peak force difference, maximum force is encompassed at least by Fa , and minimum force is encompassed at least by Fb .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gervais with the teaching of the bandwidth found in Wonderlich and the teaching of wherein the bandwidth is determined from the difference between a maximum coulter force and a minimum coulter force of the coulter force curve found in Shi. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the bandwidth is determined from the difference between a maximum coulter force and a minimum coulter force of the coulter force curve with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]). One would have also been motivated to do so in order to establish a desired smoothness across a field (see at least Henry, [0030] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 3 as detailed above.
Gervais suggests wherein a limit value see at least [0053] “The controller 414 compares the sensor data from the electrical output signals to a range of "no-action" values. That is, if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed within the range of "no-action" values set for the particular sensor, then the controller 414 will not effectuate a change to the amount of the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 228 on the opener 232. However, if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed by the various sensors are outside the range of "no-action" values, the controller 414 will adjust, e.g., increase or decrease, the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 228 on the opener 232. The range of "no action" values is of sufficient size to avoid the constant changing of the hydraulic pressure exerted by cylinder 228, but avoids undesirable over-force or under-force on the opener 232.”).
Examiner interprets that limit value of the bandwidth and/or bandwidth is encompassed at least by range of "no-action" values and a control deviation is encompassed at least by if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed by the various sensors are outside the range of "no-action" values.
Henry more explicitly teaches a limit value see at least [0042] “The graph 106 also includes a maximum threshold force 118, and a minimum threshold force 120. The maximum threshold force 118 corresponds to an upper bound of a desired soil finish smoothness range.”).
Examiner interprets that limit value of the bandwidth is encompassed at least by a maximum threshold force 118 and/or a minimum threshold force 120 and bandwidth is encompassed at least by desired soil finish smoothness range.
Shi more explicitly teaches wherein a limit value see at least [0033] “Stable feedback also requires applying appropriate gain when a deviation in the oscillation from the setpoint is detected. The gain must be adjusted to return oscillation back to the setpoint. P and I gain are adjusted with the user typically employing trial and error to make sure the feedback remains stable. And because the gains do not operate independently, the challenge is particularly complicated.”).
Examiner interprets that limit value of the bandwidth is encompassed at least by setpoint and control deviation is encompassed at least by a deviation in the oscillation from the setpoint is detected.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Gervais of wherein a limit value of the bandwidth is used as a reference variable of the control loop, which is compared with the bandwidth to determine a control deviation with the teaching of a limit value of the bandwidth found in Henry and the teaching of wherein a limit value of the bandwidth is used as a reference variable of the control loop, which is compared with the bandwidth to determine a control deviation found in Shi. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method according to claim 3, in that wherein a limit value of the bandwidth is used as a reference variable of the control loop, which is compared with the bandwidth to determine a control deviation with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]). One would have also been motivated to do so in order to establish a desired smoothness across a field (see at least Henry, [0030] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, Wonderlich, and Shi teaches themethod according to claim 4 as detailed above.
Gervais teaches wherein the control deviation is fed to a controller see at least [0029] “It is intended for the information sensed by the sensor array 311 to be used by the controller 314 to control the flow of hydraulic fluid to or from the hydraulic cylinder 52, and thus, the amount of down pressure force applied on the disc 22. More specifically, the amount of down force applied by the hydraulic cylinder 52 is substantially controlled by the controller 314 to maintain a desired seed depth and furrow formation” and [0053] “As the opener 232 is pulled through the planting surface, the various sensors provide the controller 414 with the electrical output signals, as heretofore described. The controller 414 compares the sensor data from the electrical output signals to a range of "no-action" values…if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed by the various sensors are outside the range of "no-action" values, the controller 414 will adjust, e.g., increase or decrease, the hydraulic down pressure force being exerted by cylinder 228 on the opener 232.”).
Examiner interprets that control deviation is encompassed at least by if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed by the various sensors are outside the range of "no-action" values and a value of the coulter pressure is formed as a control variable is encompassed at least by control the flow of hydraulic fluid to or from the hydraulic cylinder 52, and thus, the amount of down pressure force, the amount of down force applied by the hydraulic cylinder 52, and/or adjust, e.g., increase or decrease, the hydraulic down pressure force.
Shi more explicitly teaches wherein the control deviation is fed to a controller see at least [0033] “Stable feedback also requires applying appropriate gain when a deviation in the oscillation from the setpoint is detected. The gain must be adjusted to return oscillation back to the setpoint. P and I gain are adjusted with the user typically employing trial and error to make sure the feedback remains stable. And because the gains do not operate independently, the challenge is particularly complicated.”).
Examiner interprets that control deviation is encompassed at least by deviation in the oscillation from the setpoint is detected and value is formed as a control variable is encompassed at least by gain.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gervais of wherein the control deviation is fed to a controller in which a value of the coulter pressure is formed as a control variable with the more explicit teaching of wherein the control deviation is fed to a controller in which a value is formed as a control variable found in Shi. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the control deviation is fed to a controller in which a value of the coulter pressure is formed as a control variable with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]).
Claims 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gervais et al. (US2016/0165789A1) in view of Henry et al. (US2015/0012189A1) in view of Wonderlich et al. (US2020/0344944A1) in further view of Schoeny et al. (US2020/0305335A1), hereinafter Gervais, Henry, Wonderlich, and Schoeny respectively.
Regarding claim 8, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais teaches wherein the limit value see at least [0006] “a control system and a sensor array are utilized to provide automatic and continuous down pressure adjustments (according to a certain user specified range) at various speeds to substantially maintain a relatively constant seed depth” and [0038] “the various sensors provide the controller 314 with the electrical output signals, as heretofore described. The controller 314 compares the sensor data from the electrical output signals to a range of "no-action" values. That is, if the amount of strain, acceleration, angle or pressure falls sensed within the range of "no-action" values set for the particular sensor,”).
Examiner interprets that the limit value of the bandwidth and/or the limit value of the coulter force are encompassed at least certain user specified range and/or a range of "no-action" values.
However, Schoeny suggests wherein the limit value see at least [0033] “The threshold value may be established by the operator or may be determined by the controller based on certain conditions (e.g., the orientation of the ground engaging component, soil conditions and properties, residue conditions and properties, weather, a type of the agricultural product applied by the agricultural implement 11, environmental conditions, and other conditions).”).
Examiner interprets that the limit value
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Gervais of wherein the limit value of the bandwidth and/or the limit value of the coulter force with the suggested teaching of wherein the limit value of the bandwidth and/or the limit value of the coulter force are stored in a driving mode and are set by selecting the driving mode found in Schoeny. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the limit value of the bandwidth and/or the limit value of the coulter force are stored in a driving mode and are set by selecting the driving mode with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide better determination of how the system, in isolation, is reacting in the field, therefore allowing improved adjustment and control (see at least Gervais, [0010]) and further improve operator convenience.
Regarding claim 12, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais does not explicitly teach wherein a cache memory in a cache memory.
Henry teaches the coulter force curve see at least [0041] “FIG. 5 is an exemplary graph 106 of force applied to an element of the row unit of FIG. 2. In the illustrated graph 106, the x-axis 108 is representative of time, and the y-axis 110 is representative of force. In addition, a curve 112 represents a contact force on an element (e.g., opener, closing disk, etc.) of the row unit as a function of time.”).
Schoeny teaches wherein a cache memory is cached in a cache memory (see at least [0027] “For example, the implement sensors 54 may sense a tire pressure, a down force on a component of a row unit 22, and other parameters associated with the operation of the agricultural implement 11. Such measured parameters may be stored in the memory 50.”).
Examiner interprets that cache memory is encompassed at least by memory 50.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gervais with the teaching of the coulter force curve found in Henry and the teaching of wherein a cache memory in which the measured parameters is cached in a cache memory found in Schoeny. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein a cache memory in which the coulter force curve is cached in a cache memory with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve system performance by storing frequently referenced/accessed data.
Regarding claim 13, (Currently Amended) the combination of Gervais, Henry, and Wonderlich teaches the method according to claim 1 as detailed above.
Gervais does not explicitly teach wherein the measuring interval
However, Schoeny more explicitly teaches wherein the measuring interval see at least [0059] “The sensing by the sensors may be at periodic time intervals, based on a user input, in response to a triggering event (e.g., a sensed condition), or a combination thereof.”).
Examiner interprets that measuring interval is encompassed at least by sensing by the sensors may be at periodic time intervals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gervais with the teaching of Schoeny of wherein the measuring interval is set. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the measuring interval order to increase accuracy for identifying trends, behavioral and/or operational patterns, and further to enable one to perform analysis on obtained data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bergerfurth et al. (US2021/0185891A1) Discloses a seed drill having a frame, to which the at least one seeding coulter and a fertiliser coulter arranged upstream of the seeding coulter in a working direction are connected, wherein the seeding coulter and the fertiliser coulter are each assigned a depth control means.
Houck (US2015/0230391A1) Discloses a planting system including a plurality of seeding row assemblies, each having components maintained at a controlled elevation. The seeding row assembly includes a tillage row unit controlled to maintain a desired elevation relative to a seeding row unit, the seeding row unit being configured to passively follow the local terrain. Each seeding row assembly can include two position sensors that generate signals corresponding to the elevation of the seeding row unit and the ground engagement attachment, respectively, or a differential position sensor that generates signals corresponding to the difference in the elevations. Various embodiments include a local closed loop controller that adjusts elevation of the tillage row unit relative to the seeding row unit to a desired set point. In some embodiments, the down force of the seeding row unit is actively controlled.
Johnson et al. (US2022/0279697A1) Discloses a system for adjusting a force acting on a row cleaner of a row unit for an agricultural implement including a first frame member, a second frame member pivotably coupled to the first frame member, at least one cleaning wheel rotatable relative to the second frame member, a biasing member configured to apply a force against the second frame member along a line of action, an actuator configured to actuate the biasing member to adjust an orientation of the line of action of the force, and a controller configured to selectively control an operation of the actuator. The biasing member extends between first and second biasing ends, with the first biasing end being pivotably coupled to the second frame member. The actuator extends between first and second actuator ends, with the second actuator end being pivotably coupled to the second biasing end.
Kowalchuk (US2014/0196919A1) Discloses a method and system for controlling operation of a tractor and/or agricultural implement towed by the tractor. A vibration sensor is mounted to the agricultural implement to detect the magnitude of vibration, or bounce, on the agricultural implement. Because the magnitude of the vibration is a function of several operating parameters including, but not limited to, the speed at which the tractor is travelling and the downward pressure applied to the agricultural implement, one or more additional sensors are provided to monitor these operating parameters. Each of the sensors generates a feedback signal and transmits it to the controller. The controller is configured to generate a reference signal to control an actuator as a function of the magnitude of vibration and the measured operating parameter. The actuator receiving the reference signal is configured to control operation of the tractor or agricultural implement to reduce the magnitude of vibration.
Romsaas et al. (US2023/0146967A1) Discloses a seed coulter arranged to place one or more inputs in a groove behind a tine of a direct seed drill for field crops. The seed coulter is arranged for displaceable connection to the tine and is freely displaceable in the longitudinal direction of the tine between a lower position and an upper position. A seeding unit comprising the seed coulter, and a direct seed drill comprising a plurality of seeding units are described as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights