Systems and methods for determining and controlling an agricultural machine operational mode

Bradley K. Yanke, Eldridge, IA (US); Manoj T. Muttepawar, Pune (IN); Nathan R. Vandike, Geneseo, IL (US); Nikhil N. Anandwade, Kolhapur (IN)

USPTO: us-12628739 · published 2026-05-19 · patents · A01D 41/1278

Systems and methods for determining and controlling an agricultural machine operational mode

Nathan R. Vandike, Geneseo, IL (US) , Manoj T. Muttepawar, Pune (IN) , Nikhil N. Anandwade, Kolhapur (IN) , Bradley K. Yanke, Eldridge, IA (US) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 18:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification patents A01D 41/1278

keywords agricultural machineoperational modeauxiliary deviceobstacle detectionprofile adjustmentautomated actuator control

0 comments

The pith

A processor in an agricultural machine selects an operational mode, then checks the current state of any auxiliary device and scans for external obstacles before commanding a change that would alter the machine's outer profile.

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

The patent describes a control system that ties machine operating modes to specific positions of movable auxiliary devices such as headers or wings. When the desired position differs from the present one, the system calculates the resulting change in overall shape and uses onboard sensors to look for anything that would be struck during the move. If an obstacle is detected, the displacement is postponed until the path is clear or the object has moved, after which the actuator is finally instructed to proceed. A sympathetic reader sees this as a practical way to reduce collisions and operator intervention during routine field transitions.

Core claim

The system determines an operational mode, identifies the matching predetermined state for the auxiliary device, compares it with the current state reported by an auxiliary sensor, computes the profile adjustment that would result from the change, uses an onboard sensor to detect any external obstacle in the path of that adjustment, delays the move until the obstacle is absent or relocated, and only then issues the actuator command.

What carries the argument

Processor routine that links operational mode to a target auxiliary state, senses current state and external obstacles, inserts a delay when collision risk exists, and releases the actuator once the path clears.

If this is right

Machines can switch between transport, field-work, and headland modes with reduced risk of striking nearby objects or people.
Operators receive fewer manual interventions when an auxiliary device must fold, unfold, or raise.
Sensor data about both internal state and external clearance become integral to safe mode changes rather than optional add-ons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same logic could be extended to coordinate multiple auxiliary devices whose profile changes interact with one another.
Integration with vehicle speed or steering commands might allow the machine to pause or steer slightly while waiting for clearance.
Over time the accumulated sensor records could support predictive adjustments that anticipate recurring obstacle patterns in a given field.

Load-bearing premise

The auxiliary and onboard sensors are assumed to deliver timely and accurate data on device position and nearby obstacles under all normal working conditions.

What would settle it

Field test in which an obstacle remains undetected long enough for the actuator to begin moving and contact occurs.

read the original abstract

16 . A system for an agricultural machine, the system comprising: an auxiliary device configured for selective displacement between at least a first state and a second state; an auxiliary sensor configured to provide information indicative of a current state of the auxiliary device, the current state corresponding to the auxiliary device being at the first state, the second state, or an intermediate state between the first state and the second state; an actuator configured to displace the auxiliary device at least between the first state and the second state; an onboard sensor; at least one processor; and a memory device coupled to the at least one processor, the memory device including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine an operational mode for the agricultural machine; identifying a predetermined state for the auxiliary device corresponding to the operational mode; identify, from, information provided by the auxiliary sensor, the current state of the auxiliary device; determine, if the current state is different than the predetermined state, an adjustment to an outer profile of at least a portion of the agricultural machine that will occur if the auxiliary device is displaced to the predetermined state; identify, using information provided by the onboard sensor, an external obstacle to the adjustment to the outer profile if the auxiliary device were to be displaced to the predetermined state; delay, in response to the external obstacle being identified, the displacement of the auxiliary device to the predetermined state; determine, after the delay, an absence or a change in a position of the external obstacle; and adjust, in response to the absence or the change in position of the external obstac

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 spells out a straightforward safety interlock for moving auxiliary parts on ag machines, but it stays at the level of a functional spec without new mechanisms or test data.

read the letter

The core sequence—pick a machine mode, figure out where an auxiliary device should sit, check for profile changes that would hit something, and hold off until the path clears—makes sense on paper and directly targets a real collision risk during field adjustments. That logic is laid out cleanly in the claims. What stands out is the explicit delay-and-recheck step tied to an onboard sensor; it avoids the obvious “just move and hope” approach. Beyond that, the document does not introduce new sensing hardware, novel prediction algorithms, or any quantitative performance bounds. The description assumes the auxiliary and onboard sensors will always deliver timely, accurate data on device state and external obstacles. No numbers appear on detection range, latency, false-negative rates under dust or canopy cover, or what happens if the obstacle only partially clears. Without those details or any failure-mode analysis, the safety claim rests on an unverified precondition rather than demonstrated behavior. Prior-art comparisons are also absent, so it is hard to judge how much the combination actually departs from existing machine-control practice. This is a patent filing, not a research paper, so the usual scientific standards do not fully apply. A reader interested in equipment safety interlocks might still skim the claims for the exact decision flow. For peer review in a technical journal it would not clear the bar; the work is too thin on evidence and implementation to justify referee time.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript (US patent 12628739) claims a control system for an agricultural machine comprising an auxiliary device, auxiliary sensor, actuator, onboard sensor, processor and memory. The processor determines an operational mode, identifies a target state for the auxiliary device, senses its current state, computes the resulting change to the machine’s outer profile, uses the onboard sensor to detect external obstacles that would intersect that profile change, delays actuation while an obstacle is present, and only commands displacement once the obstacle is absent or has moved.

Significance. If the sensor-driven safety logic can be shown to operate reliably under field conditions, the approach supplies a concrete, implementable method for reducing collision risk during dynamic reconfiguration of agricultural equipment. The contribution is primarily engineering rather than theoretical; its value lies in the explicit conditional sequence that couples mode selection to real-time obstacle verification.

major comments (2)

Claim 16 (and the corresponding description): the safety branch “delay … determine … absence” is asserted to terminate safely, yet no quantitative bounds are supplied on detection range, false-negative rate, update latency, or performance under dust, crop canopy, or partial occlusion. Without these bounds the conditional cannot be shown to guarantee safe termination.
Claim 16: the manuscript enumerates functional steps but provides neither pseudocode, state-machine diagram, nor failure-mode analysis that would allow an implementer to verify that the processor sequence is free of race conditions or sensor-timeout deadlocks.

minor comments (2)

Abstract line beginning “identifying a predetermined state”: the verb form is inconsistent with the surrounding infinitives; should read “identify” for grammatical parallelism.
The provided text is truncated at “external obstac”; the final clause of claim 16 is incomplete and should be supplied in full.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the practical requirements for safe field deployment of the claimed control logic. Below we respond to each major comment.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Claim 16 (and the corresponding description): the safety branch “delay … determine … absence” is asserted to terminate safely, yet no quantitative bounds are supplied on detection range, false-negative rate, update latency, or performance under dust, crop canopy, or partial occlusion. Without these bounds the conditional cannot be shown to guarantee safe termination.

Authors: We agree that the specification does not furnish numerical sensor-performance figures. Because the invention is the conditional decision sequence rather than any particular sensor technology, such bounds are intentionally left to the implementer’s choice of hardware and operating environment. We have inserted a clarifying paragraph stating that the onboard sensor must be selected to provide reliable detection within the spatial envelope of the profile change under the expected field conditions, thereby preserving the generality of the claim while directing practitioners to the necessary engineering step. revision: yes
Referee: Claim 16: the manuscript enumerates functional steps but provides neither pseudocode, state-machine diagram, nor failure-mode analysis that would allow an implementer to verify that the processor sequence is free of race conditions or sensor-timeout deadlocks.

Authors: The claim language already imposes a strict sequential order—detect obstacle, delay, re-check absence or movement—before any actuator command is issued. This ordering eliminates the principal race condition between profile change and obstacle presence. To assist implementers we have added a concise textual description of the corresponding state machine (Idle → Check-Profile-Change → Obstacle-Present → Wait-for-Clear → Actuate) together with a note that any timeout on the re-check step should return the system to the Wait-for-Clear state, thereby preventing deadlock. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: functional patent steps only

full rationale

The patent enumerates a sensor-driven control sequence (determine mode, compare states, detect obstacles via onboard/auxiliary sensors, delay displacement, then actuate) without any equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations. No self-citations, ansatzes, or reductions of outputs to inputs by construction appear. The description is self-contained as an engineering method and receives the default non-circular finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The patent rests on the unstated engineering premise that reliable real-time sensing of machine geometry and surroundings is feasible; no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or newly invented physical entities are introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5872 in / 1102 out tokens · 30944 ms · 2026-05-20T18:01:37.004638+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.

auxiliary sensor … onboard sensor … processor … memory device

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.