DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 09/19/2025. Claims 1-16 have been canceled and new claims 17-32 have been added. Claims 17-32 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted 09/19/2025 and 08/02/2026 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are 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 24 is 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 24 specifies that “the control device (7) is set up to determine the actual speed of the soil cultivation device (1) to receive a driving speed of the vehicle.” However, it is unclear how determining the actual speed of the soil cultivation device and receiving a driving speed of the vehicle are related to each other. For example, it is unclear whether the determined actual speed of the soil cultivation device is used to determine a driving speed of the vehicle, whether the actual speed of the soil cultivation device and the driving speed of the vehicle are separately received values, or whether something else is meant by this limitation. For examination purposes, claim 24 is interpreted as specifying that the control device is set up to determine the actual speed of the soil cultivation device based on a received driving speed of the vehicle. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
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.
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 17 and 30:
Step 1: Claim 17 is directed to an agricultural system. Claim 30 is directed to the corresponding method. Claims 17 and 30 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 17 and 30 recite the abstract concept of evaluating data related to an agricultural system. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 17 and 30 by the mental process steps of estimating a speed difference between the soil cultivation device and the material volume, and evaluating data generated by the first sensor device and the second sensor device to estimate an actual operating state of the soil cultivation device. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human using pen and paper to perform mathematical calculations to estimate a speed difference based on received data and mentally evaluating sensor data to estimate an actual operating state of the soil cultivation device. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 17 and 30, other than reciting “a control device,” nothing in the steps of estimating the speed difference and evaluating data to estimate an actual operating state precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “control device” language, the claims encompass a human being performing these steps in the mind with the help of pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites a control device which is a generic computer component (as supported by ¶ 55 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17 further recites that the first sensor device comprises a sensor system arranged on the soil cultivation device for estimating a speed of a material volume moved by at least one of the tools, that the second sensor device comprises a second sensor system arranged on the soil cultivation device for detecting an actual speed, and that the control device is configured to receive data generated by the first sensor device and the second sensor device. These limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as they simply gather data necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Similarly, the recited step of suggesting setting parameters of the soil cultivation device and/or of the vehicle to be changed is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply amounts to data output that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. For example, even if a suggestion of setting parameters is made, nothing in the claim requires that these setting parameters are actually followed or used in any way. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Note that the last paragraph of claim 17 recites an alternative limitation, where only one of the three listed options is required. Accordingly, while the recited steps of generating control commands to visualize an operating change which deviates from a target operating state and automatically adapting setting parameters of the soil cultivation and/or of the vehicle to be changed have not been addressed here, they are not required by the claim as it is currently written.
Claim 17 additionally recites an agricultural system comprising a soil cultivation device, a vehicle for moving and driving the soil cultivation device, and a control device, wherein the soil cultivation device has tools which are arranged on a carrier frame and can be brought into engagement with a soil to be cultivated, a first sensor device, and a second sensor device. These limitations amount to general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, as they merely specify that the abstract idea is used in the context of soil cultivation in an agricultural system with a cultivator, a driving vehicle, cultivating tools, and component sensors. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 30 recites a control device which is a generic computing component that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same rationale applied to claim 17 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 30 further recites steps of estimating a material volume moved by at least one of the tools in relation to a working width of the soil cultivation device by a first sensor device arranged on the soil cultivation device, detecting an actual speed, and receiving data generated by the first sensor device and the second sensor device. These limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as they simply gather data necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Similarly, the recited step of specifying changes to setting parameters of the soil cultivation device and/or of the vehicle is considered insignificant extra-solution activity using the same rationale applied to claim 17 above, mutatis mutandis. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 30 additionally recites that the method is performed for operating an agricultural system comprising a soil cultivation device, a vehicle for moving and driving the soil cultivation device, and a control device with which the soil cultivation device is actuated, wherein the soil cultivation device has tools which are arranged on a carrier frame and are brought into engagement with a soil to be cultivated. These limitations amount to general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., soil cultivation) using the same rationale applied to claim 17 above, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the recited control device is anything other than a conventional computer component. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the recited steps of estimating a speed of a material volume moved by at least one of the tools, detecting an actual speed, receiving data generated by the first sensor device and the second sensor device, and estimating a material volume moved by at least one of the tools in relation to a working width of the soil cultivation device by a first sensor device arranged on the soil cultivation device merely amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
MPEP 2106.05(h) explains that limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field without otherwise meaningfully limiting the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the limitations of claims 17 and 30 which limit the use of the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of soil cultivation do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 17 and 30 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 18-29 and 31-32:
Dependent claims 18 and 23 recite limitations that merely serve to further define the mental process of claims 17 and 30. For example, claim 18 specifies that the first sensor device is an imaging and/or optical sensor system, and/or that the first sensor device is arranged in a position above the carrier frame so that its detection area is directed at or can be aligned with the soil in order to detect a space located between the tools arranged at a distance from one another on the carrier frame. These limitations do not preclude the abstract idea from practically being performed in the human mind, and as such they are considered as additional mental process steps.
Dependent claims 19, 22, 25, 27-28, and 32 recite the additional steps of detecting a material volume distribution in a working area of the soil cultivation device, determining a speed of at least one component of the soil cultivation device rotating upon contact with the soil, estimating changes in a force transmitted by the tools to the soil and/or from the vehicle to the soil cultivation device, monitoring a hydraulic pressure in a cylinder of a hydraulic overload protection device of the soil cultivation device to detect a change in a tensile force transmitted from the soil cultivation device to the soil, and detecting a change in a tensile force transmitted from the soil cultivation device to the soil by force-measuring sensors arranged on the tools which can be brought into engagement with the soil. These steps merely amount to additional insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are data gathering steps that are necessary for performing the abstract idea and/or do not impose meaningful limits on the claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The mere recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as is consistent with MPEP 2106.05(g) and explained regarding claims 17 and 30 above.
Dependent claims 20-21, 24, 26, and 31 recite the additional mental process steps of dividing the material volume into different categories by evaluating the data provided by the first sensor device; determining the material volume moved by at least one of the tools by establishing a difference between a material flow speed and the actual speed of the soil cultivation device, the vehicle, or the agricultural system; determining the actual speed of the soil cultivation device to receive a driving speed of the vehicle; detecting an impending or existing blockage upon exceeding of a threshold value for a speed difference that is stored in the control device; and initially determining reference data for a speed of the material volume moved by the tools and an actual speed of the soil cultivation device and defining a target operating state when a soil cultivation process is recorded by the agricultural system. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human mentally categorizing the material volume by evaluating sensor data; using pen and paper to perform mathematical calculations to determine the material volume moved by the tool(s) by establishing a difference between a material flow speed and the actual speed of the soil cultivation device, vehicle, or agricultural system; mentally determining the actual speed of the soil cultivation device based on a received driving speed of the vehicle; mentally identifying an impending or existing blockage based on comparing the speed difference to a stored threshold value; and mentally determining and using pen and paper to write down reference data for a speed of the material volume moved by the tools and an actual speed of the soil cultivation device and defining a target operating state when a soil cultivation process is recorded by the agricultural system.
Dependent claim 29 recites that the vehicle can be operated autonomously. This limitation merely serves to generally link the use of the abstract idea to the technological environment of autonomous vehicle control. Without otherwise meaningfully limiting the claim, such general linking limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as is consistent with MPEP 2106.05(h) and explained regarding claims 17 and 30 above.
As explained above, dependent claims 18-29 and 31-32 merely recite additional mental process steps, limitations further defining the mental process, additional insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations that generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 18-29 and 31-32 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-24, 26, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rahe et al. (DE 10 2017 112 224 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rahe.
Regarding claim 17:
Rahe discloses the following limitations:
“An agricultural system, comprising: a soil cultivation device (1); a vehicle for moving and driving the soil cultivation device (1); and a control device (7), wherein the soil cultivation device (1) has tools (3) which are arranged on a carrier frame (2) and can be brought into engagement with a soil (17) to be cultivated.” (Rahe ¶ 26 and FIG. 1 reproduced below: “An agricultural machine 1 in the form of a cultivator, coupled to a towing vehicle 2, is in Fig. 1 shown. By means of a chassis 3 and/or rollers 5, the agricultural machine is guided at the depth during soil cultivation and moved across a field in the direction of travel FR. The agricultural machine 1 is equipped with a variety of soil cultivation tools.” Further, Rahe ¶ 27: evaluation can be carried out by the radar sensors themselves or by a control unit connected to them.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
711
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a first sensor device (8), and a second sensor device (9), wherein the first sensor device (8) comprises a sensor system (8a, 8b) arranged on the soil cultivation device (1), for estimating a speed of a material volume (16) moved by at least one of the tools (3), wherein the second sensor device (9) comprises a second sensor system (12, 13), arranged on the soil cultivation device (1) and detecting an actual speed.” (Rahe ¶ 27: “radar sensors are now provided in the area of the soil cultivation tools, which monitor the area in front of and/or behind and/or between the soil cultivation tools for the occurrence of blockages. … The radar sensors can each be assigned to one or more soil cultivation tools.” Additionally, Rahe ¶ 10: “the radar sensor is designed to determine a speed… by recording the frequency of the received radar waves, the relative speed between the reflecting material and the sensor can be determined.”)
“for estimating a speed difference between the soil cultivation device (1) and the material volume (16), wherein the control device (7) is configured to receive and evaluate data generated by the first sensor device (8) and the second sensor device (9) to estimate an actual operating state of the soil cultivation device (1).” (Rahe ¶ 23: “When evaluating the measurement signals from two or more radar sensors, it may be possible to define a threshold value for the minimum ratio or maximum difference of speeds determined by two radar sensors at the same time, and to interpret a fall below the ratio or an exceedance of the difference by the control unit as an impending or actual blockage.”)
“and wherein, depending on the evaluation for estimating the actual operating state, the control device (7) generates control commands to visualize an operating state change which deviates from a target operating state and/or to suggest and/or automatically adapt setting parameters, to be changed, of the soil cultivation device (1) and/or of the vehicle.” (Rahe ¶ 29: “The control unit can also intervene in the regulation of the soil cultivation machine 1 and, for example, attempt to resolve the blockage by briefly lifting the machine. It may also be provided that the control unit displays the blockage that has occurred or is imminent on a screen, in particular also the location of the radar sensor that detected the blockage. Alternatively or additionally, a warning signal can be issued.” This at least teaches to “suggest and/or automatically adapt setting parameters, to be changed, of the soil cultivation device” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 17, consistent with the specification, the limitation that “the control device (7) generates control commands to visualize an operating state change which deviates from a target operating state and/or to suggest and/or automatically adapt setting parameters, to be changed, of the soil cultivation device (1) and/or of the vehicle” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the options to “suggest and/or automatically adapt setting parameters, to be changed, of the soil cultivation device” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 18:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein the first sensor device (8) is an imaging and/or optical sensor system (8a, 8b), and/or wherein the first sensor device (8) is arranged in a position above the carrier frame (2) so that its detection area is directed at or can be aligned with the soil (17) in order to detect a space located between the tools (3) arranged at a distance from one another on the carrier frame (2).” (Rahe ¶ 13: “The radar sensors can be directed to detect accumulating material, particularly in the area in the direction of travel in front of one or between two tools, and in the case of mowing tools also behind them, and thus detect either absolutely stationary soil or plant remains, or material that has been thrown up by a soil cultivation tool positioned in front of the radar sensor in the direction of travel or that has been picked up by a mowing tool.” Further, Rahe ¶ 11 discloses that a sensor can be “directed at the ground area in front of a tillage tool.” This at least teaches the first sensor device (8) being “arranged in a position above the carrier frame (2) so that its detection area is directed at or can be aligned with the soil (17) in order to detect a space located between the tools (3) arranged at a distance from one another on the carrier frame (2)” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 18, consistent with the specification, the limitation “wherein the first sensor device (8) is an imaging and/or optical sensor system (8a, 8b), and/or wherein the first sensor device (8) is arranged in a position above the carrier frame (2) so that its detection area is directed at or can be aligned with the soil (17) in order to detect a space located between the tools (3) arranged at a distance from one another on the carrier frame (2)” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the first sensor device being “arranged in a position above the carrier frame (2) so that its detection area is directed at or can be aligned with the soil (17) in order to detect a space located between the tools (3) arranged at a distance from one another on the carrier frame (2)” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 19:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein the first sensor device (8) is set up to detect a material volume distribution (18) in a working area of the soil cultivation device (1).” (Rahe ¶ 13: “The radar sensors can be directed to detect accumulating material, particularly in the area in the direction of travel in front of one or between two tools, and in the case of mowing tools also behind them, and thus detect either absolutely stationary soil or plant remains, or material that has been thrown up by a soil cultivation tool positioned in front of the radar sensor in the direction of travel or that has been picked up by a mowing tool.”)
Regarding claim 20:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein the control device (7) is set up to divide the material volume into different categories by evaluating the data provided by the first sensor device (8).” (Rahe ¶ 11: “If the speed of a large quantity of material decreases increasingly relative to the radar sensor, or if increasing quantities of material are detected at low relative speeds, this may be a measure of increasing clogging of the agricultural machine with soil or other material, such as plant residues. … In the event of a blockage, the radar sensor’s field of view of the ground is restricted or completely blocked by obstructing material carried by the machine, so that a significant proportion of the measured radar waves show no or a much smaller frequency shift compared to the measurement signals without blockage, which is an indication of an impending or existing blockage.”)
Regarding claim 21:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein the control device (7) is set up to determine the material volume (16) moved by at least one of the tools (3) by establishing a difference between a material flow speed and the actual speed of the soil cultivation device (1), the vehicle, or the agricultural system.” (Rahe ¶¶ 21-23 disclose “the control unit taking into account the speed of the agricultural machine and/or the working depth of the tillage tool and/or the working speed of the tools, in particular the rotational speed of mowing tools… it may be possible to define a threshold value for the minimum ratio or maximum difference of speeds determined by two radar sensors at the same time, and to interpret a fall below the ratio or an exceedance of the difference by the control unit as an impending or actual blockage.” This at least teaches to establish a difference between a material flow speed and the actual speed of the soil cultivation device and/or the agricultural system as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 21, consistent with the specification, “establishing a difference between a material flow speed and the actual speed of the soil cultivation device (1), the vehicle, or the agricultural system” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “soil cultivation device (1)” and “agricultural system” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 22:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein the second sensor device (9) is set up to determine a speed of at least one component (4, 5) of the soil cultivation device (1) rotating upon contact with the soil.” (Rahe ¶ 21: “An alternative or supplementary way to evaluate the relative speed between the radar sensor and the detected material is provided by the control unit taking into account the speed of the agricultural machine and/or the working depth of the tillage tool and/or the working speed of the tools, in particular the rotational speed of the mowing tools, when determining the blockage and/or the degree of blockage.”)
Regarding claim 23:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 22,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein, to determine the actual speed of the soil cultivation device (1), at least one speed sensor (12) is arranged on the at least one component (4, 5) of the soil cultivation device (1) rotating upon contact with the soil and/or a position locating sensor (13) is arranged on the soil cultivation device (1).” (Rahe ¶ 21: “An alternative or supplementary way to evaluate the relative speed between the radar sensor and the detected material is provided by the control unit taking into account the speed of the agricultural machine and/or the working depth of the tillage tool and/or the working speed of the tools, in particular the rotational speed of the mowing tools, when determining the blockage and/or the degree of blockage.” Also, Rahe ¶ 27: “radar sensors 8 are now provided in the area of the soil cultivation tools.” This at least teaches that “at least one speed sensor (12) is arranged on the at least one component (4, 5) of the soil cultivation device (1) rotating upon contact with the soil” as claimed. Also, Rahe ¶ 33 discloses the use of “GPS sensors on the towing vehicle 2 or the soil cultivation machine 1,” which teaches the use of “a position locating sensor (13) is arranged on the soil cultivation device (1)” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 23, consistent with the specification, the limitation that “at least one speed sensor (12) is arranged on the at least one component (4, 5) of the soil cultivation device (1) rotating upon contact with the soil and/or a position locating sensor (13) is arranged on the soil cultivation device (1)” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while both options have been addressed here, only one of the two options is actually required by the claim.
Regarding claim 24:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 22,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein the control device (7) is set up to determine the actual speed of the soil cultivation device (1) to receive a driving speed of the vehicle.” (Rahe ¶ 33: the control unit, which reads the radar sensors 8 and performs the blockage detection and/or intervenes in the machine control to resolve blockages, also takes into account the speed of the soil cultivation machine 1 over the ground when detecting blockages. This can be done, for example, by accessing speed sensors and/or GPS sensors on the towing vehicle 2 or the soil cultivation machine 1.”)
Regarding claim 26:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein at least one threshold value for a speed difference is stored in the control device (7), upon exceeding of which the control device (7) detects an impending or existing blockage.” (Rahe ¶ 23: “When evaluating the measurement signals from two or more radar sensors, it may be possible to define a threshold value for the minimum ratio or maximum difference of speeds determined by two radar sensors at the same time, and to interpret a fall below the ratio or an exceedance of the difference by the control unit as an impending or actual blockage.”)
Regarding claim 30:
Claim 30 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 17 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 31:
Rahe discloses “The method according to claim 30,” and Rahe further discloses “wherein, when a soil cultivation process is recorded by the agricultural system, reference data for a speed of the material volume (16) moved by the tools (3) and an actual speed of the soil cultivation device (1) are initially determined and define a target operating state.” (Rahe ¶ 30 and FIG. 3 reproduced below: “A characteristic measurement curve 20 of a radar sensor during normal operation of the soil cultivation machine 1 is shown in Fig. 3 shown. The amplitude maximum of the measurement curve 20 at a frequency shift Δf other than 0 Hz indicates a relative velocity between radar sensor and measured object in the direction of propagation of the radar waves. The frequency shift is proportional to the relative velocity of the detected object relative to the radar sensor 8. This could, for example, be the relative speed of the radar sensor 8 moved by the soil cultivation machine compared to the stationary soil. The curve 20 is particularly dependent on the speed of the soil cultivation machine 1 and can be similar for different sensors 8 at different positions of the soil cultivation machine 1, in particular this applies to radar sensors 8 arranged at least approximately next to each other perpendicular to the direction of travel FR. In contrast, for radar sensors 8 arranged one behind the other in the direction of travel, the measurement curve 20, which indicates proper operation of the soil cultivation tools in the measuring range of the radar sensor 8, may have a different position.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
511
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 25, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahe as applied to claims 17 and 30 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2019/0166762 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 25:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” but does not specifically disclose the system “further comprising a force-measuring sensor device for estimating changes in a force transmitted by the tools (3) to the soil (17) and/or from the vehicle to the soil cultivation device (1).” However, Wu does teach this limitation. (Wu ¶ 34: “tool position sensors 114 may be configured to sense the force exerted between the respective ground engaging tools and the ground surface 37. The implement controller 102 and/or vehicle controller 104 may then be configured to calculate penetration depths and/or relative positions of the various ground engaging tools with respect to the ground surface 37 based on the monitored force(s).” This at least teaches to estimate “changes in a force transmitted by the tools (3) to the soil (17)” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 25, consistent with the specification, “estimating changes in a force transmitted by the tools (3) to the soil (17) and/or from the vehicle to the soil cultivation device (1)” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only estimating changes in a force transmitted “by the tools (3) to the soil (17)” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Rahe by incorporating a force sensor for monitoring the force exerted between the tools and the soil as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wu ¶ 34 teaches that this force data can be useful in calculating penetration depths and relative positions of the tools with respect to the ground surface.
Regarding claim 28:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein a change in a tensile force transmitted from the soil cultivation device (1) to the soil (17) is detectable by force-measuring sensors arranged on the tools (3) which can be brought into engagement with the soil (17).” However, Wu does teach this limitation. (Wu ¶ 34: “the tool position sensors 114 may be configured to sense the force exerted between the respective ground engaging tools and the ground surface 37. The implement controller 102 and/or vehicle controller 104 may then be configured to calculate penetration depths and/or relative positions of the various ground engaging tools with respect to the ground surface 37 based on the monitored force(s).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Rahe by incorporating a force sensor for monitoring the force exerted between the tools and the soil as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wu ¶ 34 teaches that this force data can be useful in calculating penetration depths and relative positions of the tools with respect to the ground surface.
Regarding claim 32:
Rahe discloses “The method according to claim 30,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein changes in a force transmitted by the tools (3) to the soil and/or from the vehicle to the soil cultivation device (1) are estimated by an additional force-measuring sensor device.” However, Wu does teach this limitation. (Wu ¶ 34: “tool position sensors 114 may be configured to sense the force exerted between the respective ground engaging tools and the ground surface 37. The implement controller 102 and/or vehicle controller 104 may then be configured to calculate penetration depths and/or relative positions of the various ground engaging tools with respect to the ground surface 37 based on the monitored force(s).” This at least teaches to estimate “changes in a force transmitted by the tools (3) to the soil” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 32, consistent with the specification, estimating “changes in a force transmitted by the tools (3) to the soil and/or from the vehicle to the soil cultivation device (1)” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only estimating changes in a force transmitted “by the tools (3) to the soil” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Rahe by incorporating a force sensor for monitoring the force exerted between the tools and the soil as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Wu ¶ 34 teaches that this force data can be useful in calculating penetration depths and relative positions of the tools with respect to the ground surface.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahe as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 2019/0150351 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bauer.
Regarding claim 27:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein a change in a tensile force transmitted from the soil cultivation device (1) to the soil (17) is detectable by monitoring a hydraulic pressure in a cylinder of a hydraulic overload protection device of the soil cultivation device (1).” However, Bauer does teach this limitation. (Bauer ¶ 34: “When requesting a specific ploughing depth in the soil which has a specific soil resistance, the axial force in the upper link 13 of the three-point linkage 1 is determined by the force sensor 53 arranged in the case 52, by which the front end of the upper link 13 is hingedly connected to the front of the gearbox 3 of the tractor. The determination of the axial force in the upper link 13 of the three-point linkage 1 is in an unillustrated embodiment realized by pressure sensors connected to the oil spaces of the double acting hydraulic cylinder 5 inserted in the upper link 13 of the three-point linkage 1.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Rahe by incorporating a hydraulic pressure sensor for sensing a force transmitted to the soil as taught by Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Bauer ¶ 34 teaches that this can help to facilitate the system operating at a desired ploughing depth.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahe as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kovach et al (US 2019/0246548 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kovach.
Regarding claim 29:
Rahe discloses “The agricultural system according to claim 17,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the vehicle can be operated autonomously.” However, Kovach does teach this limitation. (Kovach ¶ 73: “the controller 112 may be configured to automatically initiate a control action that results in the ground speed of the implement 10 and/or the work vehicle 12 being reduced, such as by automatically controlling the operation of the vehicle's engine and/or transmission.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Rahe by allowing the vehicle to be operated autonomously as taught by Kovach with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kovach ¶¶ 27 and 73 teach that automatically adjusting the vehicle speed can help to avoid the ground engaging tools being displaced from their desired operating positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Röttgermann et al. (WO 2024/193768 A1) Abstract discloses a soil cultivation device with a sensor system for detecting a material excess and a control unit for generating control signals to set components of the soil cultivation device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights