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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (Claim 1 - 10) in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, claims 11-20 stand withdrawn and claims 1-10 are examined herein.
Claim 1 – 10 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2025, 6/11/2025, 8/27/2025, 9/22/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the planting" and not clear. In light of the rest of the limitation, the term “the planting” is interpreted as “the planting depth” and the claim is interpreted as further defining/limiting the term “planting depth”.
Claim 7 recite the limitation “the feedback” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the examination purpose, the term is interpreted as “a feedback”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 7 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubner et al., (hereinafter Hubner), US20220000008 in view of Strnad et al., (hereinafter Strnad), US20210307236.
Claim 1. Hubner discloses: A method for evaluating a furrow formed by an agricultural machine (0033, “determine a metric indicative of job quality (e.g., furrow quality)”), comprising:
obtaining image data of the furrow from a camera on the agricultural machine (0031, “Sensing system 130 detects a variety of characteristics relative to the furrow 140 and the agricultural surface and generates a sensor signal indicative of those characteristics”, “sensor 132 is an optical sensor, such as an imaging system (e.g., a camera) that captures an image of furrow 140 and the surrounding agricultural surface”);
determining from the image data an average planting depth within the furrow (0065 – 0069, “Such characteristics can include, but are not limited to, seed depth (planting depth)”, “each characteristic indicated by the sensor signal (and then, in some examples, extracted as a value from the sensor signal) can be assigned a scaled value. These scaled values can be aggregated (e.g., by an average, weighted average, median, as well as any other aggregation techniques).”; i.e., the system calculates the average planting/seeding/furrow depth); and
adjusting, on a user interface (0106, “user interface … user actuatable input mechanism disposed thereon”), a planting depth … based on the average planting depth (Fig. 7 & 0080 – 0090, “operator/user inputs (e.g., desired or prescribed values and/or range of values of individual characteristics)”; Fig. 7 illustrated an continuous operation of the system that circulate between step 404 – 454. In this case, user set the seed depth (planting depth) and the system monitors and reports to the user the actual average seed depth along with other quality metrics such as moisture depth, moisture line relative to seed etc. (0103) based on the image sensor. User performs subsequent adjustments/fine tune based on the observed quality metrics).
Hubner does not explicitly teach:
planting depth offset
Strnad, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
planting depth offset (Strnad Fig. 11 & 0054 – 0066, “a user may manually adjust the primary and/or secondary depth adjustment assemblies. According to some exemplary processes, the user may manually adjust the primary depth adjustment assembly and use the monitor 50 to command a depth adjustment to the secondary depth adjustment assembly”, “the monitor 50 may command a desired depth adjustment to the primary depth adjustment assembly and/or to the secondary depth adjustment assembly ( e.g., one of the actuators/motors 720, 800, 950, 1000, 1230, 1450, 1550, 1650, 1750, 1850, 1950, 1984) by receiving one or more agronomic variables from the sensors (e.g., sensors 350, 355, 360, 365, 352, 385) or from the soil data server 345 and determining a desired depth adjustment by consulting a database or algorithm relating one or more agronomic variables to a desired furrow depth.”; in this case, the primary planting depth is reflected on the average planting depth and the secondary planting depth adjustment is the offset to the average planting depth that is to adjust/fine-tune/calibrate the planting depth based on sensor/data feedback).
Hubner and Strnad both teach the agricultural machine for furrowing and seeding and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the fine-tune/adjustment mechanism of planting depth taught by Strnad in the system of Hubner to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to “increase the accuracy and/or durability of the system” (Strnad, 0002).
Claim 2. Hubner and Strnad combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Hubner further teach: the image data comprise images that cannot be evaluated to determine at least one of the furrow depth, the average planting depth, a furrow profile and a camera quality (Hubner, 0061, “Based upon a detected quality of an image, such as clarity, generated by furrow sensor system 130, control system 208 can generate control signals to control the position or operating parameters of both or either of furrow sensor 132 or illumination source 134”; i.e., the system detects that the camera performance/quality drops and the image is not good enough, the system performs corrective actions).
Claim 7. Hubner and Strnad combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. Hubner further teach: the feedback is considered by an automated system (Hubner 0030, “The position of gauge wheel arm 136 controls the position of gauge wheel 122 which in tum controls a depth of furrow 140 by controlling a depth of engagement of opener 120 with the agricultural surface (e.g., the depth of engagement into the soil). The position of gauge wheel arm 136 is controlled by the position of arm contact member 138 which can be controlled manually by an operator, and/or automatically, such as by a control system and corresponding actuator”; i.e., use feedback of arm contact member to automatically control the depth of furrow).
Claim 8. Hubner and Strnad combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 7. Hubner further teach: the automated system is a downforce automation system (Hubner, 0096, “a control signal can be generated and provided to controllable subsystem(s) 222 of agricultural machine 100 which can include … downforce subsystem 240 … if the likely furrow quality metric predicted by furrow characteristic prediction system 308 meets a quality threshold, the prospective operating parameters input by the operator/user can be automatically applied to the operation of agricultural machine 100 by providing control signals to a corresponding controllable subsystem“; i.e., based on the quality metric (feedback from sensor), automatically adjust the operation/parameter of downforce subsystem).
Claim 9. Hubner and Strnad combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 8. Hubner further teach: the automated system is a row cleaner automation system (Hubner, 0026 – 0027, “Row unit 106 can also include a row cleaner 118,”, “row unit 106 moves in the direction generally indicated by arrow 128, row cleaner 118 generally cleans the row ahead of the opener 120 to remove debris”, “downforce generator 131 can also be provided to controllably exert downforce to keep the row unit in desired engagement with the soil”; i.e., the automatic downforce in Claim 8 also operate corresponding to row cleaning).
Claim 10. Hubner and Strnad combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 7. Hubner further teach: the automated system is a depth control automation system (refer to the mapping in Claim 7, the depth is automatically controlled).
Claim(s) 3 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubner et al., (hereinafter Hubner), US20220000008, Strnad et al., (hereinafter Strnad), US20210307236 as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Tuhami, GB2537348.
Claim 3. Hubner and Strnad combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach: the planting depth offset is displayed visually on a user interface.
Tuhami, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
the planting depth offset is displayed visually on a user interface (Tuhami, Fig. 4 & page 2, “displaying a virtually moveable indicator defining a value within the range”. Hubner and Strnad teaches monitoring/adjusting planting depth offset by user, Tuhami teaches how to use visual UI to display the monitored value and collect user input. The combination renders obviousness of claimed limitation).
Hubner and Strnad combination and Tuhami both teach the displaying and collecting of a monitored value through computing/monitoring device and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the sliding user interface on touch screen taught by Tuhami in the system of Hubner and Strnad combination to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification for its “easy to use and responsive” (Tuhami, page 2).
Claim 4. Hubner, Strnad and Tuhami combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 3. The combination further teach: the user interface displays a slider configured to change the planting depth offset (refer to the mapping in Claim 3 & Tuhami, at least Fig. 4 – 5E, 9A – 10C. Slider UI).
Claim 5. Hubner, Strnad and Tuhami combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 3. The combination further teach: the user interface provides adjustments for a shallower planting depth and a deeper planting depth, the shallower and deeper planting depth corresponding to the planting depth offset (refer to the mapping in Claim 3 & 1, in this case, the UI allow user to control the secondary planting depth adjustment (offset) within its allowable/adjustable range, i.e., deeper or shallower).
Claim 6. Hubner, Strnad and Tuhami combination renders obviousness of all the limitation of Claim 3. The combination further teach: a decrease in value of the planting corresponds to a shallower planting depth and in an increase in value of the planting depth corresponds to a deeper planting depth (Hubner, at least Fig. 4 & Fig. 9A – 9C, & 0003, “depth of penetration”; i.e., the seed/planting depth are in reference to the ground surface, thus smaller depth value correspond to shallower depth and bigger depth value corresponds to deeper depth).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Martel, US20200217044, which teaches controlling of a offset value which corresponds to the planting depth of a furrow agriculture machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 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, HITESH PATEL can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/29/26
Prosecution Insights