Working machine with hitch tilt actuator used for fore/aft leveling while working the ground

Andrew Klopfenstein, Fort Worth, TX (US); Greg Arnett, Fort Worth, TX (US); Santiago Avila, Fort Worth, TX (US); Scott Shearer, Fort Worth, TX (US)

USPTO: us-12660727 · published 2026-06-23 · patents · A01B 63/32· A01B 63/10

Working machine with hitch tilt actuator used for fore/aft leveling while working the ground

Scott Shearer, Fort Worth, TX (US) , Andrew Klopfenstein, Fort Worth, TX (US) , Santiago Avila, Fort Worth, TX (US) , Greg Arnett, Fort Worth, TX (US) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-24 06:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification patents A01B 63/32A01B 63/10

keywords working machinehitch actuatorsoil engagementframe sectionscontrollerground implementssensor feedbackautomatic leveling

0 comments

The pith

A working machine uses sensors on its ground implements and a hitch actuator to automatically tilt the rear frame and correct non-optimal soil engagement.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The patent describes a machine with two connected frame sections, each carrying ground-working implements, plus a hitch that can be pivoted by an actuator. Sensors measure the degree of engagement of each implement with the ground surface. A controller monitors those measurements and, when it detects poor engagement on either implement, commands the actuator to tilt the hitch and thereby shift the rear frame relative to the front frame. The adjustment occurs while the machine continues working the ground. A sympathetic reader would see this as an automated way to keep both sets of implements at the desired depth or angle without stopping or manual correction.

Core claim

The central claim is that the controller, in response to sensor data showing non-optimal soil engagement of the first or second ground implement, actuates the hitch tilt actuator to produce movement of the second frame section relative to the first frame section, thereby correcting the engagement while the implements continue working the ground surface.

What carries the argument

The controller that receives sensor measurements of implement engagement and commands the hitch actuator to pivot the hitch connector, thereby changing the relative angle between the two frame sections.

If this is right

The machine can maintain consistent implement depth across changing terrain without operator input.
Both front and rear implements can be kept at their target engagement simultaneously by a single hitch adjustment.
Operation can continue uninterrupted while the system makes corrections.
The same sensor-actuator loop can respond to either the front or rear implement being out of optimal contact.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach could be extended to machines with more than two frame sections if additional actuators are added.
The same feedback principle might apply to other adjustable parameters such as down-pressure or implement angle once the tilt correction is in place.
If the sensors prove reliable, the system reduces the skill level required for consistent ground-working results.

Load-bearing premise

The sensor readings of how well each implement is engaging the ground are accurate and fast enough that the actuator corrections will reliably improve engagement without creating instability or other problems.

What would settle it

A controlled field run in which the controller issues tilt commands yet the measured engagement of the implements does not improve or the machine becomes unstable.

read the original abstract

1 . A working machine comprising: a frame assembly including a first frame section and a and second frame section that is located rearwardly of the first frame section; a hitch connector having opposing first and second ends, wherein the hitch connector is pivotably coupled at the first end to the first frame section and the second end is configured to connect with a transport vehicle; ground implements configured to work a ground surface, wherein the ground implements comprise a first ground implement of the first frame section and a second ground implement of the second frame section; a transportation system including transportation devices; at least one actuator connected to the hitch connector and the first frame section for pivoting the hitch connector relative to the first frame section; at least one sensor to produce measurements indicative of a degree of engagement of the first ground implement with a first part of the ground surface and a degree of engagement of the second ground implement with a second part of the ground surface; and a controller including one or more processors configured to operate the at least one actuator based on the measurements while the first and second ground implements work the ground surface, wherein, in response to a detected non-optimal soil engagement of the first ground implement or the second ground implement, the controller actuates the at least one actuator to produce movement of the second frame section relative to the first frame section to correct the non-optimal soil engagement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The patent describes a sensor-controlled hitch tilt for leveling multi-section implements but the abstract leaves the mechanical link between sections unspecified.

read the letter

The core idea here is using sensors on front and rear ground implements to drive a hitch actuator that tilts the whole rig and corrects soil engagement on the back section. That functional goal is clear from the abstract.

What stands out as new is the closed-loop setup that ties hitch pivot directly to real-time engagement measurements on both implements while the machine is working. The description spells out the hardware pieces—pivotable hitch, dual-frame implements, actuator on the hitch-to-first-frame connection, and the controller logic—in one place.

The description is straightforward about the intended use case in agricultural equipment. It names the problem of non-optimal engagement and states the actuator response without extra claims.

The main gap is mechanical. The actuator is described only between the hitch and the first frame section, yet the claim is that actuating it moves the second frame relative to the first. No joint, pivot, or kinematic path between the two frame sections is mentioned, so the asserted effect on the rear implement rests on an undescribed connection. That is a load-bearing omission in the functional specification.

There is also no data, test results, or error bounds, which is typical for a patent but leaves the reliability of the sensor-to-actuator loop unexamined.

This is written for equipment designers and patent examiners working on farm machinery controls. It is not a research result and does not belong in a scientific reading group or citation list. A serious editor should desk-reject rather than send it to peer review.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims a working machine with a two-section frame (first section forward, second rearward), a hitch pivotably coupled to the first section, ground implements on each section, a hitch-tilt actuator connected between the hitch and first frame section, sensors measuring implement-soil engagement, and a controller that commands the actuator upon detecting non-optimal engagement to produce relative movement between the two frame sections for fore/aft leveling.

Significance. If the undescribed kinematic linkage between frame sections functions as asserted, the design would allow automatic leveling via an existing hitch actuator, potentially simplifying agricultural equipment. No empirical data, derivations, or reproducibility elements are present to support this assessment.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the actuator is described as connected solely between the hitch connector and the first frame section 'for pivoting the hitch connector relative to the first frame section,' yet the central claim asserts that this actuation 'produce[s] movement of the second frame section relative to the first frame section.' No joint, pivot, linkage, or indirect kinematic pathway between the first and second frame sections is specified, leaving the functional mechanism for relative motion undescribed and the central claim without a load-bearing mechanical basis.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract, first sentence: 'a first frame section and a and second frame section' contains a typographical error.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback on the patent application. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comment.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the actuator is described as connected solely between the hitch connector and the first frame section 'for pivoting the hitch connector relative to the first frame section,' yet the central claim asserts that this actuation 'produce[s] movement of the second frame section relative to the first frame section.' No joint, pivot, linkage, or indirect kinematic pathway between the first and second frame sections is specified, leaving the functional mechanism for relative motion undescribed and the central claim without a load-bearing mechanical basis.

Authors: We agree that the abstract does not explicitly describe the kinematic connection between the first and second frame sections. The full patent specification details that the frame sections are joined by a pivot or hinge permitting relative angular displacement, such that actuation of the hitch tilt produces the asserted fore/aft leveling effect on the second section. To improve clarity and address the referee's concern, we will revise the abstract to include a concise reference to this linkage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in functional hardware specification

full rationale

The document is a patent specification describing a mechanical assembly and controller logic. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, derivations, or self-citations. The central claim is a direct functional description of components and their intended operation; no step reduces by construction to its own inputs or to a self-referential fit. The absence of any mathematical or predictive chain makes circularity analysis inapplicable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 1 invented entities

The patent introduces a specific machine configuration and control logic as an invention; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or independently evidenced new physical entities are present in the abstract.

invented entities (1)

sensor-driven hitch tilt actuator for fore/aft leveling no independent evidence
purpose: to automatically correct non-optimal soil engagement of ground implements by relative movement of frame sections
The abstract defines this integrated system as the core invention; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction outside the patent is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5823 in / 1135 out tokens · 31361 ms · 2026-06-24T06:00:52.323932+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the controller actuates the at least one actuator to produce movement of the second frame section relative to the first frame section to correct the non-optimal soil engagement

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.