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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/22/2026 is being entered. Claims 21-29, 31-34, and 36-42 are pending. Claims 29 and 31 are amended. Claims 41-42 are new. Claims 30 and 35 are cancelled. The amendment to claim 31 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection and the double patenting rejection by including the allowable subject matter of cancelled claim 35. Therefore, claims 31-34 and 36 are allowed. Further, the arguments filed on 07/22/2026 with respect to claim 37 are persuasive and the rejection of claim 37 is withdrawn. Therefore, claims 37-41 are allowed. However, after further consideration, the arguments with respect to claim 21 are not persuasive and claims 21-25 and 28-29 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the double patenting rejection remains. Therefore, this rejection has been made final.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 07/22/2026 with respect to claim 21 is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues on Page 12 of the Remarks that “Meyer has not been shown to teach “predict, based on the instantaneous yaw rate of the towing vehicle, a predicted yaw rate of a towed application tool towed by the towing vehicle.”.
Examiner disagrees, Meyer discusses in paragraph 0063 step 610: position and heading of a tool (and vehicle) are updated based on the kinematic parameters of a vehicle using a GPS on receiver 400 on the vehicle, these kinematic parameters include a turn rate (yaw rate) (see Paragraph 0054). Therefore, the position and heading of the tool are determined in step 610 and are based on the turn rate (yaw rate) of the vehicle. In Paragraph 0099, multiple predictions of the position and heading of the tool in the future are predicted/determined (based on the yaw rate of the vehicle: step 610), then the time-derivative of multiple predictions of positions and headings of implements 30a-30c of the tool (based on geometries of the implements 30a-30c) are used to determine speed and turn rates (yaw rates) of the implements 30a-30c which in turn are used to predict the individual velocity of the implements 30a-30c. For example, along a curved path the speed of implement 30c is faster than implement 30a and the system predicts that there will be individual velocities for each of the implements (based on the yaw rates of each of the implements), each velocity of each implement along the curved path will be different due to the turn rates for each implement along the curved path being different. On a curved path, the yaw rate of the inside wheels (implement 30c) will be different than the yaw rate of the outside wheels (implement 30a). Therefore, the yaw rate of the vehicle is used to determine the position and heading of the tool (see Paragraph 0063) and after determining multiple predictions of the position and heading of the tool in the future (based on the yaw rate of the vehicle), then the time-derivative of multiple predictions of positions and headings of implements 30a-30c of the tool (based on geometries of the implements 30a-30c) are used to determine turn rates (yaw rates) of the implements 30a-30c (see Paragraph 0097).
The arguments filed on 07/22/2026 with respect to claim 37 are persuasive and the rejection of claims 37-41 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims in the instant application include the same limitations as the issued patent but the independent claims in the instant application are broader than the independent claims in the issued patent (the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim)..
19,233,930
U.S. Patent No. 12,349,614
21. An agricultural system comprising:
1. An agricultural system, comprising:
a yaw rate detector configured to detect an instantaneous yaw rate of a towing vehicle;
a towing vehicle;
one or more processors; and
an agricultural machine, coupled to the towing vehicle, including an application tool that applies material to a field at work points distributed along a transverse axis of the application tool;
memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:
an instantaneous yaw rate detector detecting an instantaneous yaw rate of the towing vehicle;
predict, based on the instantaneous yaw rate of the towing vehicle, a predicted yaw rate of a towed application tool towed by the towing vehicle; and
a tool yaw rate prediction system predicting, based on the instantaneous yaw rate detected on the towing vehicle, a plurality of different yaw rate values, each predicted yaw rate value of the plurality of different predicted yaw rate values corresponding to a respective work point of a set of the work points distributed along the transverse axis of the application tool; and
control the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool.
a meter controller configured to control a meter that controls a rate at which the material is provided to the work points based on the plurality of different predicted yaw rate values, wherein the meter controller comprises a curve/table accessing system configured to access a pre-defined correlation that correlates predicted yaw rate values to control signal values to obtain a control signal for the meter controller.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-25 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meyer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0217849 A1) hereinafter Meyer.
Regarding claim 21, Meyer discloses an agricultural system comprising:
a yaw rate detector configured to detect an instantaneous yaw rate of a towing vehicle [see Paragraphs 0053-0054 - discusses processing GPS data from GPS receivers to determine kinematic parameters that are used to determine a turn rate (yaw rate)];
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, [see Paragraphs 0021-0022 - discusses a processor and a memory storing instructions] configure the one or more processors to:
predict, based on the instantaneous yaw rate of the towing vehicle, a predicted yaw rate of a towed application tool towed by the towing vehicle [see Paragraph 0063 - discusses 610 updating the modeled position/heading of the machine/tool based on the kinematic parameters (turn rate) of the towing vehicle (see Paragraph 0054), and see Paragraph 0099 - discusses 'In addition As described above, method 600 predicts the position of tool 16 at a future time of known time interval from the present time. Method 600 may be adapted to predict the position and heading of tool 16 at multiple times in the future (see Paragraph 0097 - 610), either within or between each iteration of method 600. This results in multiple predictions of position and heading of tool 16 at different times. Based on the known geometry of implements 30a to 30c relative to tool bar 17, multiple predictions of the individual positions and heading of implements 30a to 30c may be determined. The time-derivative of these multiple predictions of positions and headings of implements 30a to 30c, may be used to predict the individual speed and turn rate of implements 30a to 30c, which may in turn be used to predict the individual velocity of implements 30a to 30c, using geometric and kinematic relationships. Based on the predicted velocity of implements 30a to 30c, tool control module 512 may generate control signals individualized for each of control tool actuators 32a to 32c This may be effected so that implements 30a and 30c deposit substantially constant and uniform amounts of seed and/or fertilizer per unit length of land 24, despite tool 16 moving along a curved path.' - the turn rates of the implements of the tool (see Paragraph 0099) are based on the turn rate of the vehicle (see Paragraph 0063), using the turn rate of the implements, individual velocity of the implements for each of the actuators of the implements is determined and a flow rate for each implement is then determined and each flow rate differs from each other (due to the vehicle on a curve) so that a constant and uniform amount of seed/fertilizer is deposited]; and
control the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool [see Paragraph 0099 - In addition or the alternative, tool control module 512 may generate control signals for tool actuators 32 to compensate for a speed differential between laterally spaced apart implements 30 (e.g., implements 30a to 30c show in FIG. 4B). The present position of tool 16 can be determined based on GPS data from second GPS receiver 402. As described above, method 600 predicts the position of tool 16 at a future time of known time interval from the present time. Method 600 may be adapted to predict the position and heading of tool 16 at multiple times in the future, either within or between each iteration of method 600. This results in multiple predictions of position and heading of tool 16 at different times. Based on the known geometry of implements 30a to 30c relative to tool bar 17, multiple predictions of the individual positions and heading of implements 30a to 30c may be determined. The time-derivative of these multiple predictions of positions and headings of implements 30a to 30c, may be used to predict the individual speed and turn rate of implements 30a to 30c, which may in turn be used to predict the individual velocity of implements 30a to 30c, using geometric and kinematic relationships. Based on the predicted velocity of implements 30a to 30c, tool control module 512 may generate control signals individualized for each of control tool actuators 32a to 32c].
Regarding claim 22, Meyer discloses the invention with respect to claim 21. Meyer further discloses wherein the yaw rate detector comprises one of:
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) [see Paragraph 0053 - discusses a GPS receiver];
Regarding claim 23, Meyer discloses the invention with respect to claim 21. Meyer further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to control the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool by:
generating a control signal for an actuator of the towed application tool [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses 614; generating control signals individualized for each actuator based on the individualized predicted turn rates (yaw rates) of the implement that is based on the GPS data - "tool control module 512 may generate control signals for tool actuators 32 to compensate for a speed differential between laterally spaced apart implements 30 (e.g., implements 30a to 30c show in FIG. 4B).] based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool to control a rate at which material is provided to a work point of the towed application tool and controlling the actuator based on the control signal [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses that the actuators deposit substantially constant and uniform amounts of seed/fertilizer at a flow rate, when the tool is moving on a curved path, the actuators deposit substantially constant and uniform amounts of seed/fertilizer based on the generated individualized control signals, the work points are where the actuators deposit the seed/fertilizer, see Figure 4B below - depicts the actuators (32a-32c)].
PNG
media_image1.png
338
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4B of Meyer
Regarding claim 24, Meyer discloses the invention with respect to claim 23. Meyer further discloses wherein the actuator comprises a meter [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses a dispenser for seed or fertilizer].
Regarding claim 25, Meyer discloses the invention with respect to claim 21. Meyer further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to control the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool by:
generating a respective control signal for each actuator of a plurality of actuators of the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses generating a control signals individualized for each actuator based on the turn rate]; and controlling each actuator of the plurality of actuators according to the respective control signal to control the respective rate at which each actuator provides material to a respective one or more work points of a plurality of work points of the towed application tool [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses that the actuators deposit substantially constant and uniform amounts of seed/fertilizer, when the tool is moving on a curved path, the actuators deposit substantially constant and uniform amounts of seed/fertilizer based on the generated individualized control signals, the work points are where the actuators deposit the seed/fertilizer, see Figure 4B below - depicts the actuators (32a-32c)].
PNG
media_image1.png
338
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4B of Meyer
Regarding claim 28, Meyer discloses the invention with respect to claim 21. Meyer further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to:
obtain a machine configuration [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses using known geometry of implements to determine multiple predictions of the individual positions and heading of implements 30a to 30c, the time-derivative of these multiple predictions of positions and headings of implements 30a to 30c, may be used to predict the individual speed and turn rate of implements 30a to 30c]; and
control the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool and the machine configuration [see Paragraph 0099 - discusses using known geometry of implements to determine multiple predictions of the individual positions and heading of implements 30a to 30c, the time-derivative of these multiple predictions of positions and headings of implements 30a to 30c, may be used to predict the individual speed and turn rate of implements 30a to 30c, and generating control signals individualized for each actuator based on the individualized predicted turn rates (yaw rates) of the implement (and geometry)].
Regarding claim 29, Meyer discloses the invention with respect to claim 25. Meyer further discloses wherein the material comprises at least one of seed [see Paragraphs 0042 and 0099 - discusses depositing seed] or fertilizer [see Paragraphs 0042 and 0099 - discusses depositing fertilizer].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-34 and 36-41 are allowed.
Claims 26-27 and 42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
Meyer fails to disclose, or make obvious, these features of:
Claim 26
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: obtain a predefined correlation between predicted yaw rates and control signals; and generate the respective control signal for each actuator of the plurality of actuators of the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool and the predefined correlation.”
Claim 27
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to: obtain a travel speed of the towing vehicle; obtain a distance value indicative of a distance between the yaw rate detector and the towed application tool; and predict the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool based, at least, on the travel speed of the towing vehicle, the distance value, and the instantaneous yaw rate.”
Claim 37
“generate a respective control signal value for each actuator of the plurality of actuators based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate and machine configuration data.”
Claim 41
“generate the respective control signal for each actuator, of the plurality of actuators, of the towed application tool based, at least, on the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool and a predefined correlation between the predicted yaw rate and respective control signal.”
Claim 42
“a plurality of actuators, each actuator configured to provide material to a respective one or more work points of a plurality of work points across a transverse axis of the towed application tool, wherein the predicted yaw rate of the towed application tool comprises a predicted yaw rate at a reference point on the towed application tool, and the control comprises control of each respective actuator, of the plurality of actuators, based on the predicted yaw rate at the reference point and relative position of the respective actuator and the reference point.”
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights