DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination, and Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 07/16/2026.
Claims 9 and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 20-23 are new.
Claims 1-8 and 11-23 are pending for examination.
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
With regards to the objection to the specification. The applicant has amended the title of the invention to be more indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
With regards to the claim objection to claims 13 and 17, the amendments made to said claims remove the informalities present in the previous office action. Therefore the objections to claim 13 and 17 are withdrawn.
With regards to the 112(b) rejection to claim 8, the applicant has amended the claim to overcome the indefinite language found in the previous office action. The amended claim clarifies the conditions for the read condition information effect to occur. Therefore, the rejection to claim 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14-20, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 12, and 17-19 under U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered. The amended claims 1 and 19 recites limitations that the prior art Beutin et al. (EP 2602134 B1; hereafter Beutin) and Wieckhorst et al. (DE102021120758A1; hereafter Wieckhorst) do not explicitly teach. Therefore, the rejection to claims 1-4, 12, and 17-19 under U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. However, a newfound basis of rejection has been made in view of Beutin and in further view of Kusakawa et al. (US 11763658 B2; hereafter Kusakawa) and Kiefer et al. (DE 102016217156 A1; hereafter Kiefer).
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “when the attaching switch is operated continuously for the predetermined period, control start and stop of supply of hydraulic fluid” which contains grammatical errors. The examiner has interpreted this claim to recite the following “when the attaching switch is operated continuously for the predetermined period, [control start and stop of] start or stop the supply of hydraulic fluid”. Additionally, the claim recites “the predetermined period” however, claim 1 recites multiple predetermined periods. The examiner recommends the applicant to amend the claim to specify what actions the first predetermined period performs (stopping the supply of hydraulic fluid for example) and what actions the second predetermined period performs (starting the supply of hydraulic fluid for example). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Beutin as evidenced by Kiefer, and Kusakawa.
Beutin was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Beutin discloses a working vehicle comprising:
a hitch to attach and detach an attachment thereto and ([0031]; “A trailer coupling 10a is attached to a towing vehicle 12, for example a cross member.”);
at least one operation switch to be operated to attach or detach the attachment to or from the hitch ([0058]; “For example, the locking drive 47c can be actuated by a switch 53, for example an electric push button.”);
a receiver to receive a wireless signal which is transmitted periodically from a transmitter in or on the attachment ([0041]; “For example, an RFID transponder 39a is arranged on the trailer 17, while the load carrier 90 has a different RFID transponder 39b.”), which includes identification information of the attachment ([0041]; “The RFID transponders 39a and 39b have different identification codes 70 and 71, so that the control unit 50a or 50b can recognize, based on the identification code 70 or 71, whether the trailer 17 or the load carrier 90 is coupled to the respective trailer coupling 10a or 10b.”), and
a controller to perform a predetermined process based on the identification information included in the wireless signal received by the receiver ([0049]; “Depending on the identification identifiers 71 or 71, for example an evaluation unit 77 of the control units 50a or 50b modifies signals from the rotary angle sensors 31a or 31b before forwarding these signals to the vehicle network 52.”), wherein
the hitch includes:
a latching mechanism operable selectively in a latching state in which the attachment is secured to the hitch and an unlatching state in which the attachment is not secured to the hitch ([0015]; “The control unit advantageously has a switching output for switching or controlling a drive of the trailer coupling, for example a locking drive for locking the coupling arm and/or unlocking the coupling arm, or an actuator for adjusting the coupling arm”); and
a latch actuator to actuate the latching mechanism from the latching state to the unlatching state while the detaching switch is being operated ([0059]; “The transmitter switch 57 can also be used to operate the locking drive 47d, and preferably also the actuator 46.”, and to actuate the latching mechanism from the unlatching state to the latching state while the attaching switch is being operated, and
the first predetermined period being a period of time taken for the latching mechanism to switch from the latching state to the unlatching state, the second predetermined period being a period of time taken for the latching mechanism to switch from the unlatching state to the latching state. ([0017]; “Therefore, if the control unit detects the RFID transponder simultaneously or in close temporal proximity, it opens a time window within which the switch can be actuated or within which the actuation of the switch controls the locking drive or the actuator.”
Note: The variation between the operation switch being operated for a set duration compared to the control system opening a time window to perform the latching operating is merely a difference in design choice. Both methods perform the same operation of restricting the attaching/detaching operation to prevent misinputs.)
Although Beutin discloses using a switch for connecting attachments ([0015]; “The control unit advantageously has a switching output for switching or controlling a drive of the trailer coupling, for example a locking drive for locking the coupling arm and/or unlocking the coupling arm, or an actuator for adjusting the coupling arm, for example between a working position used for coupling a trailer or load carrier, and a rest position adjusted towards the body of the towing vehicle, into which the coupling arm is expediently adjusted when not in use.”), Beutin does not disclose operating a switch for a predetermined period.
However Kusakawa does teach the controller is configured or programmed to,
when the detaching switch is operated continuously for a first predetermined period or more, determine that the attachment is allowed to be detached from the hitch
when the attaching switch is operated continuously for a second predetermined period or more, determine that the attachment is allowed to be attached to the hitch
([col. 14 lines 39-45]; “The short press is a manipulation for which the user keeps pressing the button 34 for a time period less than a first press-time Ta1 (200 milliseconds, for example). The long press is a manipulation for which the user keeps pressing the button 34 for a time period equal to or longer than the first press-time Ta1 but less than a second press-time Ta2 (3 seconds, for example).”
Note: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the operation of the attach/detach switch acts as an indicator that the attachment is allowed to be attached or detached.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beutin with Kusakawa. This modification would have been obvious because both Beutin and Kusakawa cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (working machine attachment) and it would have been beneficial to utilize various switch operations to perform different actions.
Although Beutin discloses using wireless communication to transmit identification information, Beutin does not disclose wireless communication that is compliant with a near field communication standard.
However Kiefer, does teach a receiver to receive a wireless signal which is transmitted periodically from a transmitter in or on the attachment, which includes identification information of the attachment, and which is compliant with a near field communication standard; ([0005]; “Various communication devices that would seem useful to the expert are conceivable, such as Bluetooth, WLAN, Zigbee, NFC, RFID, GSM, LTE or UMTS and/or a USB port, a CAN bus interface, an Ethernet interface, an optical interface, a KNX interface and/or a powerline interface.”))
cause a user interface to output information indicating that the attachment is allowed to be detached and cause a user interface to output information indicating the attachment that is attached to the hitch based on the identification information included in the wireless signal received by the receiver ([0004]; “The user interface device preferably comprises at least one input unit for entering or setting at least one control and/or regulation parameter, which is designed in particular as a setting unit, and/or more preferably at least one output unit for outputting machine tool and/or operating information, for example an error message or a work instruction for troubleshooting, to the operator.”
Note: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the operation of the attach/detach switch acts as an indicator that the attachment is allowed to be attached or detached. Therefore, the user interface merely needs to output information regarding the attached/detached attachment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beutin with Kusakawa and Kiefer. This modification would have been obvious because both Beutin, Kusakawa and Kiefer cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (working machine attachment) and it would have been beneficial to utilize NFC technology as it provides two way communication vs RFID one-way communication.
Regarding claim 2, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Beutin discloses the controller is configured or programmed to, when the detaching switch is operated continuously for the first predetermined period or more, determine that the attachment is allowed to be detached from the hitch and start a without-attachment predetermined process as the predetermined process, the without-attachment predetermined process being a process based on a precondition that the working vehicle is provided with no attachments. ([0015]; “The control unit advantageously has a switching output for switching or controlling a drive of the trailer coupling, for example a locking drive for locking the coupling arm and/or unlocking the coupling arm, or an actuator for adjusting the coupling arm, for example between a working position used for coupling a trailer or load carrier, and a rest position adjusted towards the body of the towing vehicle, into which the coupling arm is expediently adjusted when not in use.”)
Regarding claim 3, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Beutin discloses the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attaching switch is operated continuously for the second predetermined period or more, determine that the attachment indicated by the identification information included in the wireless signal received by the receiver is attached to the hitch and start a with-attachment predetermined process as the predetermined process, the with-attachment predetermined process being a process based on a precondition that the working vehicle is provided with the attachment. ([0015]; “The control unit advantageously has a switching output for switching or controlling a drive of the trailer coupling, for example a locking drive for locking the coupling arm and/or unlocking the coupling arm, or an actuator for adjusting the coupling arm, for example between a working position used for coupling a trailer or load carrier, and a rest position adjusted towards the body of the towing vehicle, into which the coupling arm is expediently adjusted when not in use.”)
Regarding claim 4, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 2. Additionally Beutin discloses the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attaching switch is operated continuously for the second predetermined period or more, determine that the attachment indicated by the identification information included in the wireless signal received by the receiver is attached to the hitch and start a with-attachment predetermined process as the predetermined process, the with-attachment predetermined process being a process based on a precondition that the working vehicle is provided with the attachment. ([0015]; “The control unit advantageously has a switching output for switching or controlling a drive of the trailer coupling, for example a locking drive for locking the coupling arm and/or unlocking the coupling arm, or an actuator for adjusting the coupling arm, for example between a working position used for coupling a trailer or load carrier, and a rest position adjusted towards the body of the towing vehicle, into which the coupling arm is expediently adjusted when not in use.”)
Regarding claim 12, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Beutin discloses the controller is configured or programmed to:
when the detaching switch is operated continuously for the first predetermined period or more and a first actuation period has passed since a start of operation of the detaching switch, determine that the attachment is allowed to be detached from the hitch and start a without-attachment predetermined process as the predetermined process, the without-attachment predetermined process being a process based on a precondition that the working vehicle is provided with no attachments ([0016]; “For example, the control unit forms part of a system in which the control unit can be operated by means of a switch, for example a push button, a radio switch or another wireless switch, in order to, for example, unlock or lock the clutch arm or adjust it. “
[0017]; “Only if the control unit can recognize a correct or authorized identification identifier can the control unit be set or... Ready to switch the locking drive or the actuator.”
Note: The variation between the operation switch being operated for a set duration compared to the control system opening a time window to perform the latching operating is merely a difference in design choice. Both methods perform the same operation of restricting the attaching/detaching operation to prevent misinputs.); and
when the attaching switch is operated continuously for the second predetermined period or more and a second actuation period has passed since a start of operation of the attaching switch, determine that the attachment is attached to the hitch and start a with-attachment predetermined process as the predetermined process, the with-attachment predetermined process being a process based on a precondition that the working vehicle is provided with the attachment. ([0016]; “For example, the control unit forms part of a system in which the control unit can be operated by means of a switch, for example a push button, a radio switch or another wireless switch, in order to, for example, unlock or lock the clutch arm or adjust it. “
[0017]; “Only if the control unit can recognize a correct or authorized identification identifier can the control unit be set or... Ready to switch the locking drive or the actuator.”
Note: The variation between the operation switch being operated for a set duration compared to the control system opening a time window to perform the latching operating is merely a difference in design choice. Both methods perform the same operation of restricting the attaching/detaching operation to prevent misinputs.)
Regarding claim 17, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Beutin discloses a memory to store a first set period which is equal to or longer than the first predetermined period and a second set period which is equal to or longer than the second predetermined period ([0013]; “Another preferred variant provides that the control unit has a memory in which data assigned to at least one identification identifier is stored and that it is designed to generate a message signal or a control signal depending on the at least one identification identifier and at least one piece of information stored in the memory.”
[0062]; “Therefore, if the control unit 50c recognizes the identification code 72, it releases the switch 53 or the transmit switch 57 to switch the locking drive 47c, preferably for a time window of, for example, 1s to 10s.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the time window as taught by Beutin would be saved in memory for the controller to determine the appropriate amount of time allotted to operate the switch. This would perform the same functions as the limitation disclosed by the applicant to perform the same result.); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, when the at least one operation switch is operated continuously for the first set period or more or for the second set period or more, determine that the attachment is allowed to be detached from the hitch or is attached to the hitch and start the predetermined process. ([0017]; “Therefore, if the control unit detects the RFID transponder simultaneously or in close temporal proximity, it opens a time window within which the switch can be actuated or within which the actuation of the switch controls the locking drive or the actuator.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the RFID being within close proximity would be considered a condition for whether the attachment is allowed to be locked or unlocked. In addition, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the latch in locked that it would be ready to be unlocked and vice versa.)
Regarding claim 18, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Beutin discloses the transmitter is a beacon transmitter to transmit an advertisement signal including identification information of the attachment in or on which the transmitter is provided ([0041]; “The RFID transponders 39a and 39b have different identification codes 70 and 71, so that the control unit 50a or 50b can recognize, based on the identification code 70 or 71, whether the trailer 17 or the load carrier 90 is coupled to the respective trailer coupling 10a or 10b.”); and
the receiver is a beacon scanner to receive the advertisement signal. ([0042]; “The RFID reading device 38 is expediently arranged directly on the coupling arm 13a or 13b, particularly preferably on the coupling body 15a or 15b, so that communication with the RFID transponder 39 can take place with as little interference as possible.”)
Claim 19 recites an attachment usage system that comprises limitations that are contained within the working vehicle as claimed in independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 20 recites an attachment usage system that comprises limitations that are contained within the working vehicle as claimed in independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Beutin as evidenced by Kusakawa and Kiefer as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Chaudhari (US 10351061 B1).
Chaudhari was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 11, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 3. Additionally Beutin discloses a first memory to store one or more pieces of control data set for respective one or more of the attachments ([0013]; “Another preferred variant provides that the control unit has a memory in which data assigned to at least one identification identifier is stored”); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to start, as the with-attachment predetermined process, a process including reading, from the first memory, one of the one or more pieces of control data that corresponds to one of the one or more attachments that is attached to the hitch ([0013]; “Another preferred variant provides that the control unit has a memory in which data assigned to at least one identification identifier is stored and that it is designed to generate a message signal or a control signal depending on the at least one identification identifier and at least one piece of information stored in the memory.”)
Although Beutin discloses locking/unlocking the attachment to the vehicle, Beutin does not disclose connecting/disconnection power to said attachment.
However Chaudhari does teach controlling output of power to the one of the one or more attachments based on the read one of the one or more pieces of control data. ([col. 1, lines 47-49]; “The implement receives rotary power from the PTO to drive the operation of the particular implement to which the tractor is connected.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to disconnect power to the attachment when disconnecting the attachment to the vehicle as intended goal of detaching the attachment to the vehicle is to separate them from each other. It would then be obvious to disconnect the power cable that connects them.)
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Beutin as evidenced by Kusakawa and Kiefer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohnishi (JP5614972B2).
Regarding claim 22, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Ohnishi discloses the controller is configured or programmed to, when the attaching switch is operated continuously for the predetermined period, control start and stop of supply of hydraulic fluid to the attachment and/or amount or pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to the attachment. ([page 3, pg. 2]; “For this reason, in the locked state, the attachment is locked and held at a relatively low signal pressure (holding pressure), while in the released state, the quick hitch actuator is driven by the high line pressure to release the attachment is done.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beutin with Wieckhorst, Chaudhari and Ohnishi. This modification would have been obvious because both Beutin, Wieckhorst, Chaudhari and Ohnishi cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (working machine attachment control) and it would have been beneficial to control the flow of hydraulic fluid when attaching and detaching attachments.
Regarding claim 23, Beutin in combination with Kusakawa and Kiefer discloses all the limitations of 1. Additionally Nishikawa discloses the latch actuator includes either one of:
a hydraulic latch cylinder to be retracted or extended to cause the latching mechanism operate in the unlatching state or the latching state, or an electric motor to be rotated forward or backward to cause the latching mechanism operate in the unlatching state or the latching state. ([page 2 pg. 7]; “A quick hitch cylinder that is lockedto the vehicle body by a quick hitch cylinder that releases and releases the locked state, and includes a hydraulic source and drain side on the vehicle body side, and a rodside oil chamber and bottom side oil on the quick hitch cylinder.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beutin with Wieckhorst, Chaudhari and Ohnishi. This modification would have been obvious because both Beutin, Wieckhorst, Chaudhari and Ohnishi cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (working machine attachment control) and it would have been beneficial to utilize a hydraulic cylinder for latching the attachment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-16 and 21 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.
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 BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
