DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-17 are pending. Claims dated 06/11/2026 are being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Double patenting:
Applicant in remarks filed 06/11/2026 has not presented substantive arguments traversing the rejection, but has indicated that Applicant reserves the right to rebut any future indication of the rejection (p. 8 of remarks). The rejections under double patenting will be maintained because the applicant has not addressed the merits of the rejection. Persuasive argument(s) or terminal disclaimer is required to resolve the double patenting rejections.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Regarding patent eligibility for claims 1-4, Applicant in remarks filed 06/11/2026 has presented arguments that the claims, as amended, includes steps that are concrete (p. 11 of remarks). The additional elements including “altering, via the user interface, a planting operation”, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In agreement, the Examiner has withdrawn the previously set forth 101 rejections for claims 1-4.
Regarding patent eligibility for dependent claim 15, Applicant argues:
“For the present application, it is against all things known for US patent law (under, e.g., MPEP, USPTO policies, and case law), that a dependent claim can be abstract when the claim from which it depends has been recognized as NOT being abstract. This is akin to saying an independent claim is novel, but one of its dependent claims is not” (p. 12 of remarks).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments for patent eligibility of claim 15. The premise that a dependent claim cannot be found abstract if its parent claim is patent-eligible is false under current USPTO policy and MPEP guidelines.
For example, as stated in MPEP § 2106.07, independent eligibility does not protect dependents: “even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more.” Further under Alice/Mayo Framework, while a proper dependent claim structurally narrows scope by incorporating all base limitations, a dependent claim may introduce an unintegrated abstract idea (i.e., mental process) in the dependent limitation itself without saving it under Step 2A/2B of the Alice/Mayo framework. The Examiner maintains the 101 rejections for claims 15-17.
35 U.S.C. § 102/103:
Applicant argues “the amended claim language is not disclosed […] lacking with respect to any mention of identifying (with the same sensor) soil characteristics and a position of a seed in a furrow” (p. 13 of remarks).
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/11/2026 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Independent claims 6 and 9 do not require the particulars of sensing with the same electronic sensor both the two claimed soil characteristics and position of a seed in a furrow and instead encompasses more than one electronic sensor to do so.
Double Patenting
The rejections under double patenting will be maintained because the applicant has not addressed the merits of the rejection. Persuasive argument(s) or terminal disclaimer is required to resolve the rejections. See Office Action mailed 03/26/2026 for detailed listing.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: “sensed soil characteristics” should be “the sensed soil characteristics”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the sensed soil characteristics comprises” should be “the sensed soil characteristics comprise[[s]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
“the sensed soil characteristics and the position of the seed is displayable” should be “the sensed soil characteristics and the position of the seed [[is]]are displayable”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: “sensed soil characteristics comprises” should be “sensed soil characteristics comprise[[s]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 lists a plurality of different sensors that can act as the claimed “electronic sensor”. However, per claims 9 and 15 which claim 16 is dependent on, the claims now require sensing (with the same electronic sensor) both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content.
The Specification, as originally filed, does not support that each of the claimed sensors in claim 16 are adapted to sense both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content. Specifically, specification Para. [0044] describes both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content may be determined with using only a single temperature sensor “by applying necessary algorithms to convert the soil temperature reading to moisture content of the soil”.
Claim 16, however, recites sensors that are not temperature sensors. For example, a laser distance sensor is not a temperature sensor. A video camera is not a temperature sensor. While the claim recites certain sensors (i.e., thermal imager) capable of sensing temperature, the claim also recites sensors that do not appear to be capable of sensing temperature. Due to the amendments to claim 9 and 15, the sensors listed in claim 16 must be limited to being able to, with the same sensor, sense both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content.
There is no evidence currently of record that each of these sensors are adapted to do so, and Examiner is of the position that any sensor not adapted to doing so is new matter in claim 16 (i.e., laser distance sensor). Applicant may present evidence that each of the sensors disclosed are capable of doing so, or amend the claim to remove the sensors unable to do so (see also 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection below for claim 16 on Examiner’s reasoning as to why it is believed there are sensors listed that do not appear to be adapted to sense both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content).
Claims 3-4 and 16 are rejected under 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 applicant, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites displaying “the GPS position”. The claim is indefinite as this limitation is unclear as to whether this may refer to (1) the GPS position “of the seed” or (2) the GPS position “of the sensed soil characteristics”.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites storing “the GPS position”. The claim is indefinite as this limitation is unclear as to whether this may refer to (1) the GPS position “of the seed” or (2) the GPS position “of the sensed soil characteristics”.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites a plurality of sensors, but it is not clear how some of the sensors listed are adapted to sense both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content. While the specification provides support for temperature sensors being adapted to so, “by applying necessary algorithms to convert the soil temperature reading to moisture content of the soil” ([0044]), the sensors listed in claim 16 are not all temperature sensors. For example, a laser distance sensor does not measure temperature – it measures distance by sending out a light beam and times its return or measures its angle, treating every surface the same regardless of how hot or cold that target object is. It does not appear possible for a laser distance sensor to sense both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content, when it appears a laser distance sensor, as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, is simply sensing distance (how can a laser distance sensor sense temperature?). The same reasoning applies to the other sensors in a – l that may not be able to sense both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Claim 15 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 15 recites:
(Claim 15) The control and monitoring system of claim 9, further comprising an electronic sensor in communication with the processing unit and adapted to sense the soil characteristics,
wherein the electronic sensor generates a signal associated with the sensed soil characteristics
and the processing unit receives the signal.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Specifically, the limitation: “generating a signal associated with the one or more sensed soil characteristics” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation. This concept is analogous to observing a physical characteristic (soil) and representing it as a signal which can be considered as information processing. A person can organize and/or represent, including recording/noting, the information derived from measurement. It has been held in Court that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind is patent ineligible, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional” limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
(Claim 15) The control and monitoring system of claim 9, further comprising an electronic sensor in communication with the processing unit and adapted to sense the soil characteristics,
wherein the electronic sensor generates a signal associated with the sensed soil characteristics
and the processing unit receives the signal.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitations of the processing unit in claim 9 amount to acting merely as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The additional limitations of sensing with the electronic sensor amount to mere data gathering for use in the generating step which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05.
The additional limitations of the user interface in claim 9 amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. Mere transmission of data over networks and/or mere displaying/alerting/notifying are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, none of the additional elements in the independent claim 9 or claim 15 integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
It has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, and as recited above the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible for the reasons presented in the rejection of claim 15. The step of “generating a signal” is analogous to observing a physical characteristic (soil) and representing it as a signal which can be considered as information processing as reasoned above for claim 15. A person can organize and/or represent information derived from measurement.
Accordingly, the claims drawn toward data collection, information reception, and simple presentation recites at least one abstract idea. Therefore, claims 16-17 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole. Specifically, while prior arts disclose different electronic sensors to perform the claimed actions, there is no teaching of sensing with the same electronic sensor both the two claimed soil characteristics and position of a seed in a furrow used to alter, via a user interface, a planting operation.
Regarding claims 2-4, claims 2-4 are also potentially allowable as they are dependent on potentially allowable claim 2-4 and would contain all the limitations/features of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibusawa et al. (US-20030009286-A1), in view of Baurer et al. (US-20130124055-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Shibusawa and Baurer, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Shibusawa teaches a monitoring system for use in agriculture (FIG. 2 soil characteristics survey device 10 of tractor 2 with sensing unit 52 configured to monitor a furrow in soil created by chisel unit 53), comprising:
at least one electronic sensor capable of sensing one or more soil characteristics associated with
planting (FIG. 2 sensing unit 52; [0141] the sensing unit 52 disposed in the rear of the soil excavating unit 50 has the function of detecting optical characteristics of the soil (e.g., near-infrared-light spectra, visible-light spectra, photo images) or thermodynamic characteristics of the soil (e.g., temperatures of the soil surface); [0142] …the soil characteristics (e.g., water content WE) acquired by the sensing unit (second detecting means) 52);
a user interface in communication with the at least one electronic sensor, said user interface
comprising a display and a memory (FIG. 2 display manipulating unit 20; [0082] A display manipulating unit 20 installed on the tractor 2 is electrically connected to the control unit 30, and communicates with the control unit 30 either through an inputting operation of the operator or automatically, thereby displaying, e.g., data information stored in the control unit 30; [0113] The soil characteristics survey device 10 of the present embodiment successively acquires and stores data information about characteristics of the soil in each section in the agricultural field 3 basically in accordance with this control logic; [0095] the computer 150 stores the results of these processes as recording data information in an external storage device (a card memory or the like) 75 either in accordance with instruction signals sent from the display manipulating unit 20 or automatically);
wherein the user interface displays and stores a GPS position and the one or more sensed
characteristics ([0112] the computer 150 stores the data information obtained in Step S104 as data information that corresponds to position information transmitted from the GPS satellite 200);
wherein the sensed soil characteristics comprises at least both soil temperature and soil
moisture content is displayable on the user interface ([0082] … thereby displaying, e.g., data information stored in the control unit 30).
Shibusawa does not explicitly teach: at least one electronic sensor capable of sensing a position of a seed in a furrow; wherein the user interface displays and stores a GPS position of the position of the seed in the furrow; and the sensed soil characteristics and the position of the seed is displayable on the user interface.
However, Baurer, supported by page 9 lines 5-12 of the U.S. provisional application No. 61/368,117, filed Jul. 27, 2010, teaches at least one electronic sensor capable of sensing a position of a seed in a furrow; wherein the user interface displays and stores a GPS position of the position of the seed in the furrow; and the sensed soil characteristics and the position of the seed is displayable on the user interface ([0098] The seeding control system 1005 also generates a seed placement map. As each seed 11 passes through the seed tube 32, the seed sensor 200 sends a seed pulse to the control unit 350. The planter monitor 1000 associates the time of the seed pulse with a location of the GPS unit 100 and determines the location in the field that the seed 11 was dispensed based on the GPS offsets entered by the operator in the setup phase as previously described. The planter monitor 1000 then adds the position of the seed 11 to a seed placement map that preferably displayed to the operator and is used to determine "stop planting" conditions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Shibusawa to incorporate the teachings of Baurer to include at least one electronic sensor capable of sensing a position of a seed in a furrow; wherein the user interface displays and stores a GPS position of the position of the seed in the furrow; and the sensed soil characteristics and the position of the seed is displayable on the user interface, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing visual monitoring of seed placement to improve planting performance by “minimizing overplanting and underplanting during planting operations” (Abstract Baurer).
Regarding claim 7, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the monitoring system of claim 6.
Shibusawa also teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises: wherein the sensor comprises:
an infrared sensor,
a laser sensor,
a thermal imager,
a visible wavelength imaging sensor,
an ultrasonic sensor,
a capacitive sensor,
a photoelectric sensor,
a luminescence sensor,
a contrast sensor,
a video camera,
a color sensor, or
a laser distance sensor (FIG. 3 sensing unit 52 comprises at least infrared-light sensor 62).
Claims 9-12 and 14-17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibusawa, in view of Baurer, in view of Schuler et al. (US-20030016029-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Schuler.
Regarding claim 9, Shibusawa teaches a control and monitoring system for an agricultural planting
system, the control and monitoring system, comprising:
a processing unit (FIG. 2 control unit 30; FIG. 5 data processor (computer) 150);
a user interface in communication with the processing unit, the user interface adapted to display
information associated with sensed soil characteristics (FIGS. 2 & 5 display manipulating unit 20; [0082] A display manipulating unit 20 installed on the tractor 2 is electrically connected to the control unit 30, and communicates with the control unit 30 either through an inputting operation of the operator or automatically, thereby displaying, e.g., data information stored in the control unit 30; [0113] The soil characteristics survey device 10 of the present embodiment successively acquires and stores data information about characteristics of the soil in each section in the agricultural field 3
basically in accordance with this control logic);
wherein the user interface is configurable to display the sensed soil characteristics within
a furrow created by a furrow opener associated with one row unit […], and wherein the sensed soil characteristics comprises both a soil temperature and a soil moisture content ([0082] … thereby displaying, e.g., data information stored in the control unit 30; FIG. 2 the furrow created by shank 51; [0141] the sensing unit 52 disposed in the rear of the soil excavating unit 50 has the function of detecting optical characteristics of the soil (e.g., near-infrared-light spectra, visible-light spectra, photo images) or thermodynamic characteristics of the soil (e.g., temperatures of the soil surface); [0142] …the soil characteristics (e.g., water content WE) acquired by the sensing unit (second detecting means) 52).
Shibusawa does not explicitly teach the user interface adapted to display positions of seeds in furrows.
However, Baurer, supported by page 9 lines 5-12 of the U.S. provisional application No. 61/368,117, filed Jul. 27, 2010, teaches a user interface adapted to display positions of seeds in furrows ([0098] The seeding control system 1005 also generates a seed placement map. As each seed 11 passes through the seed tube 32, the seed sensor 200 sends a seed pulse to the control unit 350. The planter monitor 1000 associates the time of the seed pulse with a location of the GPS unit 100 and determines the location in the field that the seed 11 was dispensed based on the GPS offsets entered by the operator in the setup phase as previously described. The planter monitor 1000 then adds the position of the seed 11 to a seed placement map that preferably displayed to the operator and is used to determine "stop planting" conditions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Shibusawa to incorporate the teachings of Baurer to include the user interface adapted to display positions of seeds in furrows, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing visual monitoring of seed placement to improve planting performance by “minimizing overplanting and underplanting during planting operations” (Abstract Baurer).
While Shibusawa teaches a furrow opener associated “a row unit” (FIG. 2 shank 51), Shibusawa does not explicitly teach “a plurality of row units”.
However, Schuler teaches a plurality of row units (FIG. 1 plurality of arms 22; [0026] Frame 16 further supports a series of rearwardly extending arms 22, each of which is mounted to frame 16 by means of a spring-type mounting system 24. The rearward end of each mounting arm 22 is adapted to support a soil-engaging shank member, shown generally at 26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the tractor as taught in Shibusawa to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to include a plurality of row units, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of using additional implements, i.e., more shanks, with by extension increases productivity (i.e., reducing the need for additional tillage passes). Further, Schuler [0027] teaches that any number of arms may be implemented and it would be an obvious matter of design choice to increase or decrease the number of row units in a tractor.
Regarding claim 10, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 9.
Shibusawa, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein said signal being associated with planting a first seed and used to plant a subsequent seed.
However, Schuler teaches wherein said signal being associated with planting a first seed and used to plant a subsequent seed ([0035] TDR unit 52 then outputs a visual display of volumetric soil moisture to display 54, which can be viewed by the operator. The operator can then employ a conventional operator control 72 to adjust the depth of shank member soil penetrating portion 30 using a conventional depth adjustment system 74 associated with tillage implement 10, e.g. a screw-type adjustment or a hydraulic cylinder or the like interposed between frame 16 and wheel support members 20 to move frame 16 upwardly or downwardly relative to the ground; [0037] Control unit 82 is responsive to soil moisture inputs provided by processor 52, and automatically controls the depth of implement shank members 26 to a desired depth according to the soil moisture conditions and a predetermined optimal tillage depth; [0041] For example, a soil moisture detector may be incorporated in a grain drill for insuring that seeds are planted at a proper depth according to soil moisture conditions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Shibusawa to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to include wherein said signal being associated with planting a first seed and used to plant a subsequent seed, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “insuring that seeds are planted at a proper depth according to soil moisture conditions” (Schuler [0041]), and “proper tillage can be maintained by adjusting the tillage equipment to match the changing field conditions” (Schuler [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 9.
Shibusawa also teaches further comprising a GPS system operatively connected to the processing unit and configured to pair the sensed soil characteristics with a GPS position ([0095] the computer 150 stores the results of these processes as recording data information in an external storage device (a card memory or the like) 75 either in accordance with instruction signals sent from the display manipulating unit 20 or automatically; [0112] the computer 150 stores the data information obtained in Step S104 as data information that corresponds to position information transmitted from the GPS satellite 200).
Regarding claim 12, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 11.
Shibusawa also teaches further comprising a memory associated with the processing unit, said memory storing a data pair comprising the sensed soil characteristics and the GPS position of the sensed soil characteristics ([0095] the computer 150 stores the results of these processes as recording data information in an external storage device (a card memory or the like) 75 either in accordance with instruction signals sent from the display manipulating unit 20 or automatically; [0112] the computer 150 stores the data information obtained in Step S104 as data information that corresponds to position information transmitted from the GPS satellite 200), and wherein the data pair is used for analysis and later retrieval ([0095] Then the computer 150 stores the results of these processes as recording data information in an external storage device (a card memory or the like) 75 either in accordance with instruction signals sent from the display manipulating unit 20 or automatically).
Regarding claim 14, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 9.
Shibusawa does not explicitly teach wherein a planting operation is adjustable via the user interface based upon the information associated with the sensed soil characteristics.
However, Schuler teaches wherein a planting operation is adjustable via the user interface based upon the information associated with the sensed soil characteristics ([0035] TDR unit 52 then outputs a visual display of volumetric soil moisture to display 54, which can be viewed by the operator. The operator can then employ a conventional operator control 72 to adjust the depth of shank member soil penetrating portion 30 using a conventional depth adjustment system 74 associated with tillage implement 10, e.g. a screw-type adjustment or a hydraulic cylinder or the like interposed between frame 16 and wheel support members 20 to move frame 16 upwardly or downwardly relative to the ground; [0037] Control unit 82 is responsive to soil moisture inputs provided by processor 52, and automatically controls the depth of implement shank members 26 to a desired depth according to the soil moisture conditions and a predetermined optimal tillage depth; [0041] For example, a soil moisture detector may be incorporated in a grain drill for insuring that seeds are planted at a proper depth according to soil moisture conditions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Shibusawa to incorporate the teachings of Schuler to include wherein a planting operation is adjustable via the user interface based upon the information associated with the sensed soil characteristics, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “insuring that seeds are planted at a proper depth according to soil moisture conditions” (Schuler [0041]), and “proper tillage can be maintained by adjusting the tillage equipment to match the changing field conditions” (Schuler [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 9. Shibusawa also teaches further comprising an electronic sensor in communication with the processing unit and adapted to sense the soil characteristics (FIG. 2 sensing unit 52; [0141] the sensing unit 52 disposed in the rear of the soil excavating unit 50 has the function of detecting optical characteristics of the soil (e.g., near-infrared-light spectra, visible-light spectra, photo images) or thermodynamic characteristics of the soil (e.g., temperatures of the soil surface); [0142] …the soil characteristics (e.g., water content WE) acquired by the sensing unit (second detecting means) 52),
wherein the electronic sensor generates a signal associated with the sensed soil characteristics
and the processing unit receives the signal ([0061] FIG. 8 shows a conceptual diagram illustrating the way to process the output signals of the different sensors provided in the sensing unit of the same embodiment; [0108] FIG. 7 shows a flowchart which depicts a basic routine for recording data information based on detection signals received from the different sensors disposed in the sensing unit 52).
Regarding claim 16, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 15, Shibusawa also teaches wherein the electronic sensor comprises:
an infrared sensor,
a laser sensor,
a thermal imager,
a visible wavelength imaging sensor,
an ultrasonic sensor,
a capacitive sensor,
a photoelectric sensor,
a luminescence sensor,
a contrast sensor,
a video camera,
a color sensor, or
a laser distance sensor (FIG. 3 sensing unit 52 comprises at least infrared-light sensor 62).
Regarding claim 17, Shibusawa, as modified, teaches the control and monitoring system of claim 15. Shibusawa also teaches further comprising a protective member associated with the electronic sensor (FIG. 2 sensor housing unit 60 for sensing unit 52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-6937939-B1: Shibusawa teaches a model for determining the type of soil, the water content of a soil, and the soil properties, and a soil measurement data storage portion (60) to store therein measurement data necessary to carry out the model and correlated with specific measurement conditions are provided.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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 on (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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights