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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 10 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Examiner's rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts that the cited prior art does not teach an ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit, pursuant to the Expert Declaration of Mr. Roenigh (filed 8/7/2026). Namely, Mr. Roenigh states that, “The Class Cemis-700 terminal disclosed in the Claver reference is a Universal Terminal (“UT” or “VT”) according to the ISOBUS ISO 11783 standard. However, the claimed ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit is a Control Unit according to the same standard. These are two components with two completely different functions. For a particular process, the difference can best be illustrated with an analogy: The Universal Terminal is the "eye" of the system, while the AUX-N control unit is the system's "hand." Both communicate via !SOBUS, but perform fundamentally different tasks in terms of AEF functionalities” (Expert Declaration ¶ 5).
Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees. Examiner interprets the Class Cemis 700 as a de facto ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit when employed in an ISOBUS-AUX-N system as described by Claver. In other words, Claver discloses that the Class Cemis 700 is a terminal for Isobus applications (Claver: see e.g. at least pg. 1), and in particular for ISOBUS AUX-N applications (Claver: see e.g. at least pg. 3). Although Mr. Roenigh characterizes the Cemis-700 terminal as merely an “eye” as opposed to the system’s “hand,” the Cemis-700 is not merely a display (i.e. merely receiving and displaying information from ISOBUS-AUX-N applications), but rather an operating terminal for controlling ISOBUS-AUX-N applications (i.e. a de facto ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit that in addition to receiving and displaying information, further transmits command signals for controlling ISOBUS-AUX-N applications) (for further examples and explanations regarding ISOBUS-AUX-N compatible terminals (“UT” or “VT”), see https://www.reichhardt.com/en/all-products/isobus-competence/#iso-vt, made available April 21, 2021, describing various ISO VTs, including the SMART COMMAND Terminal having multi control of, e.g. 5 booms).
Accordingly, Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 103 is maintained.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valberg (US 2022/0187927 A1) in view of Prejer (US 2016/0161989 A1), and further in view of Claver (Claver H., New Claas Cemis 700 Terminal for Isobus Applications. Future Farming (July 23, 2020), available at: https://www.futurefarming.com/smart-farming/tools-data/new-claas-cemis-700-terminal-for-isobus-applications/).
Regarding claim 1, Valberg discloses a control unit for an agricultural working machine (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1, 4, and related text), the control unit comprising:
a housing that has a front side, a rear side, and end faces (see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text),
wherein the housing has on the front side a plurality of control elements (e.g. at least fixed control actuator 11, pre-coded push buttons 1, see e.g. at least ¶ 53, 56, Fig. 4, and related text) as well as a display (e.g. at least touch screen of device 6, see e.g. at least ¶ 61, Fig. 4, and related text),
wherein the plurality of control elements are arranged on one side of a straight line extending along an edge of the display in a plan view of the front side (see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text).
Additionally, Prejer teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Valberg including namely: [a housing that has a front side, a rear side, and end faces] that connect the front side and the rear side to one another (see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 4, 9, and related text, illustrating perspective views from the front, back, and sides of a tablet computer configured in an enclosed housing).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Valberg by configuring [a housing that has a front side, a rear side, and end faces] that connect the front side and the rear side to one another as taught by Prejer in order to ensure protection for otherwise fragile electronic control devices in harsh working environments (Prejer: ¶ 10).
Additionally, Claver teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Valberg including namely: that the control unit is an ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit (see e.g. at least pg. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Valberg by configuring that the control unit is an ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit as taught by Claver in order to enable updates of the system and support compatibility for next generation implements and controls.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Valberg teaches that an extent of the housing in a longitudinal direction of the display is greater than an extent of the housing in a transverse direction of the display (Valberg: see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text; Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Valberg teaches that a width-to-length ratio of the display is in a range of 1:3 + 15% to 1:4 - 15% (Valberg: see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text; Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Valberg teaches that the plurality of control elements comprise at least one button, switch, at least one joystick and/or at least one rotary knob (Valberg: see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text; Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Valberg teaches that the housing has a recessed grip and/or grip bulge on the rear side of a part containing the plurality of control elements (Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 3-4, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Valberg teaches that the display is touch-insensitive (Prejer: see e.g. at least ¶ 15, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Valberg teaches that the display is angled towards a part of the front side containing the plurality of control elements (Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 6, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Valberg teaches that the control unit operates multiple parts of the agricultural working machine or multiple parts of different agricultural working machines (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 4; Prejer: see e.g. at least ¶ 18, 30, 36).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Valberg teaches an impact switch (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 56, Fig. 3a-4, and related text).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Valberg teaches that the control unit adjusts the display representation depending on an orientation of the control unit (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 61, Fig. 1, and related text, teaching that the handheld device 6 may be an android handheld computer or an iPad).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Valberg teaches that the housing has a multi-part design and includes an insert that comprises the plurality of control elements present on the front side (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 4; Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 5-9, and related text).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Valberg teaches an agricultural machine comprising a control unit as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above; see also e.g. at least Valberg: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 8; Prejer: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Valberg teaches that the plurality of control elements are arranged at least partially in rows on at least one end face of the housing (Valberg: see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text; Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Valberg teaches that the impact switch is housed on an end face of the housing (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 56, Fig. 3a-4, and related text).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Valberg teaches that the control unit includes a gyroscope configured for detecting an orientation of the control unit and for automatically adjusting an assignment of the plurality of control elements depending on the orientation (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 61, Fig. 1, and related text, teaching that the handheld device 6 may be an android handheld computer or an iPad).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valberg (US 2022/0187927 A1) in view of Prejer (US 2016/0161989 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marcello (EP 1714822 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Marcello teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Valberg including namely: that the straight line extends along a longitudinal edge of the display (see e.g. at least Fig. 2, illustrating a control unit including a display oriented in landscape view with control elements configured below the display).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Valberg by configuring teaches that the straight line extends along a longitudinal edge of the display as taught by Marcello in order to configure many individually useful control elements around a display screen in an uncrowded and ergonomically efficient layout, enabling display elements on the display screen to be controlled in an easy and intuitive manner (Marcello: ¶ 8, 11, 13, 33).
Regarding claim 17, Marcello teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Valberg including namely: the switch is at least one toggle switch, and the at least one rotary knob is a rotary push knob (see e.g. at least ¶ 26, 28, 51, 78).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Valberg by configuring teaches that the straight line extends along a longitudinal edge of the display as taught by Marcello in order to configure many individually useful control elements around a display screen in an uncrowded and ergonomically efficient layout, enabling display elements on the display screen to be controlled in an easy and intuitive manner (Marcello: ¶ 8, 11, 13, 33).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valberg (US 2022/0187927 A1) in view of Prejer (US 2016/0161989 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ehrl (US 2012/0229394 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ehrl teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Valberg including namely: that a plurality of control elements comprise rotary knobs arranged on end faces that face away from one another (see e.g. at least Fig. 1a-1b, and related text).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Valberg by configuring that the plurality of control elements comprise rotary knobs arranged on end faces that face away from one another as taught by Ehrl in order to provide the operator with flexibility when working with dirty hands or traveling over rough or uneven ground and allow quick screen adjustment and selection of values in an intuitive and flexible manner using either of the operator’s thumbs (Ehrl: ¶ 7-8, 40).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights