Closed loop closing system control

Cary S. Hubner, Geneseo, IL (US); David V. Rotole, Bloomfield, IA (US)

USPTO: us-12648507 · published 2026-06-09 · patents · A01B 79/02· A01C 5/068· G01N 33/246· G06T 7/0004· A01C 5/064· G01N 33/245· G06T 2207/10012· G06T 2207/30164

Closed loop closing system control

David V. Rotole, Bloomfield, IA (US) , Cary S. Hubner, Geneseo, IL (US) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-09 18:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification patents A01B 79/02A01C 5/068G01N 33/246G06T 7/0004A01C 5/064G01N 33/245G06T 2207/10012G06T 2207/30164

keywords agricultural machinefurrow closing systemsoil sensorprimary furrow closersecondary furrow closerclosed loop controlplanting equipment

0 comments

The pith

An agricultural planter uses a soil sensor on its primary furrow closer to automatically adjust the secondary closer.

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

The paper presents an agricultural machine that opens a furrow, deposits seed, and closes it with both a primary and a secondary furrow closing system. A soil sensor measures a characteristic that indicates how well the primary closer is moving soil to cover the furrow and produces a corresponding signal. A controller receives this signal and produces a control signal that changes the action of the secondary closer. The design therefore creates closed-loop feedback in which the performance of one closer directly informs the operation of the other. A reader would care because the arrangement aims to maintain consistent furrow closure across changing field conditions without requiring constant manual adjustment.

Core claim

The central claim is an agricultural machine comprising a furrow opener, planting functionality, a furrow closing system with primary and secondary closers, a soil sensor that senses a characteristic indicative of the primary closer's performance and generates a signal representing that performance, and a controller that receives the sensor signal and generates a closing system control signal to control the secondary closer based on it.

What carries the argument

The furrow closing system controller that receives the soil sensor signal representing the closing performance of the primary furrow closing system and generates a closing system control signal to control the secondary furrow closing system.

If this is right

The secondary closer can be adjusted in real time as soil conditions change during a single pass.
Overall furrow closure can be maintained at a target level by varying only the secondary system.
Operator intervention for closer settings can be reduced when the sensor signal is reliable.
The machine can respond to variations in soil moisture or residue that affect primary closer performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same sensor-to-controller loop could be extended to other ground-engaging tools on the same machine.
If the sensor signal correlates with final seed depth or emergence, the system might indirectly improve stand uniformity.
Data from the controller could be logged to map field areas where primary closer performance consistently falls short.

Load-bearing premise

The soil sensor signal must accurately indicate the closing performance of the primary system in a way that lets the controller make useful adjustments to the secondary system.

What would settle it

A side-by-side field test in which the secondary closer runs with and without the controller using the primary sensor signal, measuring whether the sensor-driven version produces measurably higher rates of properly closed furrows or lower rates of exposed seed.

read the original abstract

1 . An agricultural machine, comprising: a furrow opener opening a furrow in soil; planting functionality providing seed to the furrow; a furrow closing system that engages the soil to close the furrow, the furrow closing system comprising: a primary furrow closing system; and a secondary furrow closing system; a soil sensor sensing a characteristic indicative of a closing performance of the primary furrow closing system in moving the soil to close the furrow and generating a soil sensor signal representing the closing performance of the primary furrow closing system; and a furrow closing system controller that receives the soil sensor signal representing the closing performance of the primary furrow closing system and that generates a closing system control signal to control the secondary furrow closing system based on the soil sensor signal representing the closing performance of the primary furrow closing system.

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

This patent claims a sensor-driven feedback loop between primary and secondary furrow closers on a planter but supplies no data, algorithm, or validation.

read the letter

Colleague, the core of this document is a patent claim for an agricultural machine that uses a soil sensor on the primary furrow closer to produce a signal that then drives control of a secondary closer. The idea is a closed-loop adjustment based on measured closing performance. That specific pairing of dual closers with real-time feedback from one to the other is the configuration being protected. The text lays out the components in straightforward functional language: furrow opener, seed placement, the two closers, the sensor that captures a characteristic of closing quality, and the controller that links the sensor output to the secondary system. The description itself is internally consistent and free of contradictions. The main limitation is the total lack of any supporting content. There are no sensor details, no control law, no simulations, no field data, and no discussion of how well the loop actually performs or what happens under varying soil conditions. The claim rests on the unexamined premise that the sensor signal will be accurate and actionable enough to improve the secondary closer. This makes it impossible to judge whether the system delivers a practical gain. The document is written for the patent system and for equipment manufacturers who might want to implement or license this architecture. A reader working on precision ag hardware could extract the high-level block diagram, but there is nothing here that advances methods or provides reproducible results. I would not bring it to a reading group or cite it in technical work. It does not warrant peer review because it contains no empirical result, derivation, or analysis that a referee could evaluate.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a patent claim describing an agricultural machine with a furrow opener, planting functionality, primary and secondary furrow closing systems, a soil sensor that generates a signal representing the closing performance of the primary system, and a controller that receives this signal and produces a control signal for the secondary system.

Significance. The described closed-loop architecture conceptually allows feedback from primary closing performance to adjust the secondary system, which could address soil variability in principle. However, the manuscript contains no algorithms, sensor specifications, control laws, simulations, or validation data, so any significance is limited to the high-level system topology rather than demonstrated performance gains.

minor comments (1)

The full text consists of a single numbered claim without figures, equations, implementation details, or performance metrics, making it difficult to assess practical utility or reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for reviewing our patent application. This document is a patent claim defining a novel closed-loop agricultural system, not a journal manuscript with experimental results. We address the referee's points below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The manuscript contains no algorithms, sensor specifications, control laws, simulations, or validation data, so any significance is limited to the high-level system topology rather than demonstrated performance gains.

Authors: Patent claims are intentionally written at the system-architecture level to establish the scope of the invention; they are not required to contain algorithms, sensor specifications, control laws, simulations, or validation data. Those elements, if needed, appear in the detailed description or embodiments of the full patent specification. The inventive contribution here is the closed-loop topology itself: using a soil sensor signal from the primary furrow closer to generate a control signal for the secondary closer. This architecture is novel regardless of any particular implementation details. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The patent is a high-level functional claim describing an agricultural machine with opener, planter, primary/secondary closers, sensor, and controller. No equations, derivations, fitted quantities, predictions, or self-citations appear anywhere in the text. The central claim is the bare existence of this combination rather than any testable prediction or reduction to prior inputs, so the description is self-contained with no load-bearing step that reduces to its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The patent relies on standard domain assumptions about sensor accuracy and control responsiveness without introducing free parameters, new physical entities, or non-standard axioms.

axioms (1)

domain assumption A soil sensor can sense a characteristic indicative of the closing performance of the primary furrow closing system.
This premise directly enables the controller signal generation as described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5742 in / 1105 out tokens · 52891 ms · 2026-06-09T18:32:44.478763+00:00 · methodology

Closed loop closing system control

Core claim

What carries the argument

If this is right

Where Pith is reading between the lines

Load-bearing premise

What would settle it

discussion (0)