DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 November 2019 has been entered.
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
Claims 21-25, 28-37, and 39-43 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-20, 26-27, and 38 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23, 25, 31-33, 37, and 39-40 are amended.
Claims 41-43 are newly added.
Claims 21-25, 28-37, and 39-43 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 23 July 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 21-25, 30-35, 37, and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US Publication 2020/0337204 A1) in view of Pfeiffer et al. (US Publication 2015/0199630 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hertzog teaches a method of controlling a mobile agricultural machine, the method comprising: obtaining a first vale of a setting of a controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine, wherein the setting controls an agricultural operation of the mobile agricultural machine and the first value corresponds to a target field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 14-16; receiving control-data indicative of at least one of an operation of the plough implement or a field condition of a field across which the plough implement is being moved; control-data received, e.g. by a control unit, may include a multitude of parameters that either relate to the plough implement itself or the field); controlling , during a current operation of the mobile agricultural machine on a field, the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Hertzog: Para. 15-16; automatically controlling an operation of the depth adjustment means in a manner that adjusts a working depth of the at least one ground engaging tool on the basis of the control-data received) ………… ; after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field using the first value for the setting, receiving a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location (Hertzog: Para. 41; furrow depth determined by the image sensor; other parameters that are indicative of the quality of the furrows created by the plough bodies, such as the furrow width or weed residues left uncovered; any of these furrow quality parameters may be fed back to a control unit and used to adjust the working depth of the plough bodies accordingly); generating a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic and the target field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 41; quality of the furrows created by the plough bodies); identifying a target work control point, correlated to a geographic location on the field, based on the performance metric (Hertzog: Para. 33; receiving location data of the plough implement within the field); generating a second value for the setting based on the target work control point and the first value for the setting (Hertzog: Para. 33; current position of the plough implement may be matched to one of the plurality of candidate field-data in the database to retrieve the field-data applicable to the current position of the plough implement); and controlling the mobile agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem (Hertzog: Para. 33; automatically controlling the operation of the depth adjustment apparatus includes receiving location data of the plough implement within the field; and using the location data to select one of the candidate field-data as the field-data).
Hertzog doesn’t explicitly teach to perform the agricultural operation at a first location on the field using the first value for the setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine.
However Pfeiffer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to perform the agricultural operation at a first location on the field using the first value for the setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; evaluate the performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with a reasonable expectation of success because evaluating the performance of the machine during different field operations allows for a comparison of performance scores to improve fleet performance in similar crop and/or geographical region (Pfeiffer: Para. 36, 56).
Regarding claim 22, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 21, wherein receiving the sensor signal comprises obtaining image data representing the agricultural operation at the first location (Hertzog: Para. 18-19; control-data comprises field-data associated with previous field conditions; previous prior field-data may comprise various field parameters (such as soil moisture levels, etc.) in relation to individual locations on a map).
Regarding claim 23, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the target work control point represents a boundary of the agricultural operation at the second location on the field (Hertzog: Para. 42; field-data is indicative of a boundary between a work area and a headland of the field).
Regarding claim 24, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the sensed field characteristic comprises a first boundary of the agricultural operation corresponding to a first portion of a path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field (Hertzog: Para. 110, 125-127; first optical sensor may provide such field-data relating to the field condition in front of the working vehicle).
Regarding claim 25, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 24, wherein controlling the mobile agricultural machine comprises defining a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the mobile agricultural machine (Hertzog: Para. 111; at the end of each run/working row, the tractor and plough implement use the upcoming headland 5 or 6 for turning around, as indicated by trajectory; lift the ground engaging tools, such as the plough bodies and the skimmers, off the ground into a headland or transfer position, just before the plough implement reaches the headlands 5 or 6 respectively), and wherein the first portion of the path comprises a first pass over the field and the second portion of the path comprises a second pass over the field (Hertzog: Para. 18, 21; field-data may be acquired by the operator during previous operations on the same field; control-data may comprise field-data indicative of characteristics of soil below a ground surface of the field across which the plough implement is being moved).
Regarding claim 30, Hertzog doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a harvesting machine and the performance metric indicates an unharvested area.
However Pfeiffer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a harvesting machine and the performance metric indicates an unharvested area (Pfeiffer: Para. 41; sensors can include crop loss sensors that sense an amount of crop that is being lost, as opposed to harvested).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with a reasonable expectation of success because evaluating the performance of the machine during different field operations allows for a comparison of performance scores to improve fleet performance in similar crop and/or geographical region (Pfeiffer: Para. 36, 56).
Regarding claim 31, Hertzog teaches a mobile agricultural machine comprising: a set of ground engaging elements (Hertzog: Para. 13; the plough implement comprising a plurality of ground engaging tools); a propulsion subsystem configured to drive one or more ground engaging elements of the set of ground engaging elements (Hertzog: Para. 119; linkage and the actuator together form a depth adjustment apparatus for the plough bodies); a controllable subsystem configured to perform an agricultural operation based on a setting (Hertzog: Para. 15-16; automatically controlling an operation of the depth adjustment means in a manner that adjusts a working depth of the at least one ground engaging tool on the basis of the control-data received); and a control system configured to: obtain a first value of the setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine, wherein the first value corresponds to a target field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 14-16; receiving control-data indicative of at least one of an operation of the plough implement or a field condition of a field across which the plough implement is being moved; control-data received, e.g. by a control unit, may include a multitude of parameters that either relate to the plough implement itself or the field); control, during a current operation of the mobile agricultural machine on a field, the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Hertzog: Para. 15-16; automatically controlling an operation of the depth adjustment means in a manner that adjusts a working depth of the at least one ground engaging tool on the basis of the control-data received) …………. ; after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field using the first value for setting, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location (Hertzog: Para. 41; furrow depth determined by the image sensor; other parameters that are indicative of the quality of the furrows created by the plough bodies, such as the furrow width or weed residues left uncovered; any of these furrow quality parameters may be fed back to a control unit and used to adjust the working depth of the plough bodies accordingly); generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic and the target field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 41; quality of the furrows created by the plough bodies); identify a target work control point based on the performance metric, the target work control point representing a geographic location on the field for a desired operation state change for the agricultural operation (Hertzog: Para. 33; receiving location data of the plough implement within the field); generate a second value for the setting based on the target work control point (Hertzog: Para. 33; current position of the plough implement may be matched to one of the plurality of candidate field-data in the database to retrieve the field-data applicable to the current position of the plough implement); and control the mobile agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem (Hertzog: Para. 33; automatically controlling the operation of the depth adjustment apparatus includes receiving location data of the plough implement within the field; and using the location data to select one of the candidate field-data as the field-data).
Hertzog doesn’t explicitly teach to perform the agricultural operation at a first location on the field using the first value of the setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine.
However Pfeiffer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to perform the agricultural operation at a first location on the field using the first value of the setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; evaluate the performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with a reasonable expectation of success because evaluating the performance of the machine during different field operations allows for a comparison of performance scores to improve fleet performance in similar crop and/or geographical region (Pfeiffer: Para. 36, 56).
Regarding claim 32, Hertzog teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 31, wherein the sensor signal is received from an imaging sensor and is indicative of image data representing the agricultural operation at the first location (Hertzog: Para. 18-19; control-data comprises field-data associated with previous field conditions; previous prior field-data may comprise various field parameters (such as soil moisture levels, etc.) in relation to individual locations on a map ).
Regarding claim 33, Hertzog teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 31, wherein the target work control point represents a boundary of the agricultural operation at the second location on the field (Hertzog: Para. 42; field-data is indicative of a boundary between a work area and a headland of the field; ).
Regarding claim 34, Hertzog teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 31, wherein the sensed field characteristic comprises a first boundary of the agricultural operation corresponding to a first portion of a path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field (Hertzog: Para. 110, 125-127; first optical sensor may provide such field-data relating to the field condition in front of the working vehicle)
Regarding claim 35, Hertzog teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 34, wherein the control system is configured to: define a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field (Hertzog: Para. 111; at the end of each run/working row, the tractor and plough implement use the upcoming headland 5 or 6 for turning around, as indicated by trajectory; lift the ground engaging tools, such as the plough bodies and the skimmers, off the ground into a headland or transfer position, just before the plough implement reaches the headlands 5 or 6 respectively).
Regarding claim 37, Hertzog teaches a control system for an agricultural machine, the control system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the control system to: (Hertzog: Para. 47; computer program may be a software implementation, and the computer may be considered as any appropriate hardware, including a digital signal processor) control, during a current operation of the agricultural machine on a field, a controllable subsystem of the agricultural machine (Hertzog: Para. 15-16; automatically controlling an operation of the depth adjustment means in a manner that adjusts a working depth of the at least one ground engaging tool on the basis of the control-data received) ………. ; after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location (Hertzog: Para. 41; furrow depth determined by the image sensor; other parameters that are indicative of the quality of the furrows created by the plough bodies, such as the furrow width or weed residues left uncovered; any of these furrow quality parameters may be fed back to a control unit and used to adjust the working depth of the plough bodies accordingly); generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 41; quality of the furrows created by the plough bodies); identify a target work control point based on the performance metric, the target work control point representing a geographic location on the field for a desired operation state change for the agricultural operation (Hertzog: Para. 33; receiving location data of the plough implement within the field); generate a second value for the setting based on the target work control point (Hertzog: Para. 33; current position of the plough implement may be matched to one of the plurality of candidate field-data in the database to retrieve the field-data applicable to the current position of the plough implement); and control the agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem (Hertzog: Para. 33; automatically controlling the operation of the depth adjustment apparatus includes receiving location data of the plough implement within the field; and using the location data to select one of the candidate field-data as the field-data).
Hertzog doesn’t explicitly teach to perform an agricultural operation at a first location on a field using a first value for a setting of the controllable subsystem of the agricultural machine.
However Pfeiffer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to perform an agricultural operation at a first location on a field using a first value for a setting of the controllable subsystem of the agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; evaluate the performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with a reasonable expectation of success because evaluating the performance of the machine during different field operations allows for a comparison of performance scores to improve fleet performance in similar crop and/or geographical region (Pfeiffer: Para. 36, 56).
Regarding claim 39, Hertzog teaches the control system of claim 37, wherein the target work control point represents a boundary of the agricultural operation at the second location on the field (Hertzog: Para. 42; field-data is indicative of a boundary between a work area and a headland of the field).
Regarding claim 40, Hertzog teaches the control system of claim 37, wherein the sensed field characteristic comprises a first boundary of the agricultural operation corresponding to a first portion of a path of the agricultural machine over the field (Hertzog: Para. 110, 125-127; first optical sensor may provide such field-data relating to the field condition in front of the working vehicle), and the instructions cause the control system to: define the work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the agricultural machine over the field (Hertzog: Para. 111; at the end of each run/working row, the tractor and plough implement use the upcoming headland 5 or 6 for turning around, as indicated by trajectory; lift the ground engaging tools, such as the plough bodies and the skimmers, off the ground into a headland or transfer position, just before the plough implement reaches the headlands 5 or 6 respectively).
Regarding claim 41, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 21, and further comprising: comparing the performance metric to a target value (Hertzog: Para. 9, 16, 40-41; adjusting the plough implement to the correct ploughing depth is, therefore, an essential and most challenging tasks in setting the plough implement up for the ploughing operation; if the furrow depth determined by the image sensor is not as desired, a control unit may automatically change the working depth of one or more plough bodies); and generating the second value for the setting based on the comparison (Hertzog: Para. 9, 16, 40-41; implement-data may be indicative of any other suitable operating parameter of the plough implement that is suitable for determining a desired working depth of the at least one ground engaging tool; automatic control of the plough depth based on information that may either relate to the operation of the plough implement itself or a condition of the field across which the plough implement is being moved).
Regarding claim 42, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 41, wherein the target value corresponds to a target field characteristic for the agricultural operation at the first location (Hertzog: Para. 14-16; receiving control-data indicative of at least one of an operation of the plough implement or a field condition of a field across which the plough implement is being moved; control-data received, e.g. by a control unit, may include a multitude of parameters that either relate to the plough implement itself or the field), and generating the second value for the setting comprises generating the second value for the setting based on a correlation between the target field characteristic and the sensed field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 9, 33; current position of the plough implement may be matched to one of the plurality of candidate field-data in the database to retrieve the field-data applicable to the current position of the plough implement).
Regarding claim 43, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 42, wherein the first value of the setting is based on the target field characteristic (Hertzog: Para. 14-16; receiving control-data indicative of at least one of an operation of the plough implement or a field condition of a field across which the plough implement is being moved; control-data received, e.g. by a control unit, may include a multitude of parameters that either relate to the plough implement itself or the field).
Claims 28 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US Publication 2020/0337204 A1) in view of Pfeiffer et al. (US Publication 2015/0199630 A1) and in further view of Travis et al. (US Publication 2024/0155963 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Hertzog teaches the method of claim 21, wherein performing the agricultural operation at the first location comprises controlling the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic represents a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Hertzog: Para. 111; at the end of each run/working row, the tractor and plough implement use the upcoming headland 5 or 6 for turning around, as indicated by trajectory; lift the ground engaging tools, such as the plough bodies and the skimmers, off the ground into a headland or transfer position, just before the plough implement reaches the headlands 5 or 6 respectively).
Hertzog and Pfeiffer don’t explicitly teach generating the performance metric comprises generating the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 28; for a partial row harvest, an agricultural application will attribute the yield data for the second machine to the 4 rows that have not yet been harvested instead of attributing the yield data to all 8 rows).
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generating the performance metric comprises generating the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 28; for a partial row harvest, an agricultural application will attribute the yield data for the second machine to the 4 rows that have not yet been harvested instead of attributing the yield data to all 8 rows).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 36, Hertzog teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 31, wherein the control system is configured to: control the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic representing a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Hertzog: Para. 111; at the end of each run/working row, the tractor and plough implement use the upcoming headland 5 or 6 for turning around, as indicated by trajectory; lift the ground engaging tools, such as the plough bodies and the skimmers, off the ground into a headland or transfer position, just before the plough implement reaches the headlands 5 or 6 respectively).
Hertzog and Pfeiffer don’t explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to: control the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic representing a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation, and generate the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches generate the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 26; first machine plants or harvests in a first region, then a second machine will know not to plant or harvest in the first region; second machine can receive the seed coverage planting data from the first machine and additional related parameters such as population data, singulation data for the planting, and performance metrics from the first machine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzog et al. (US Publication 2020/0337204 A1) in view of Pfeiffer et al. (US Publication 2015/0199630 A1) and in further view of Schoeny (US Publication 2020/0037491 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Hertzog and Pfeiffer don’t explicitly teach wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a tilling machine and the performance metric indicates an un-tilled area.
However Schoeny, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a tilling machine and the performance metric indicates an un-tilled area (Schoeny: Para. 30; effectiveness of the tillage operation, such as residue coverage, residue size, clod size, seedbed depth, soil compaction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the adjustment of field depth machine parameters (Hertzog: Para. 41, 43) with the improvement control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) and combine zones identified within the map (Schoeny: Para. 48) with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling an adjacent second swath of field based on the monitored field condition of a first pass is taught by Schoeny (Schoeny: Para. 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 23 July 2026, with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights