DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/691,515 filed on 03/13/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A control unit for an agricultural working machine, the control unit comprising:
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,
wherein the housing has on the front side a plurality of control elements as well as a display,
wherein the 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."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the control elements”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A control unit for an agricultural working machine, the control unit comprising:
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,
wherein the housing has on the front side a plurality of control elements as well as a display,
wherein
Claims 2-20 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 5 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control elements comprise at least one button, switch, at least one joystick and/or at least one rotary knob."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein
Claims 6 and 17 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 6 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 5, wherein the control elements comprise rotary knobs arranged on end faces that face away from one another."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 5, wherein
Claim 7 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing has a recessed grip and/or grip bulge on the rear side of a part containing the control elements."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing has a recessed grip and/or grip bulge on the rear side of a part containing
Claim 9 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display is angled towards a part of the front side containing the control elements."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display is angled towards a part of the front side containing
Claim 11 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit operates multiple parts of the agricultural machine or multiple parts of different agricultural machines."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit operates multiple parts of an agricultural machine or multiple parts of different agricultural machines."
Claim 14 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing has a multi-part design and includes an insert that comprises the control elements present on the front side."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the housing has a multi-part design and includes an insert that comprises
Claim 16 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of control elements are arranged at least partially in rows on at least one end face if the housing"
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Incomplete claim language: The language of the claim appears to be an incomplete thought or sentence such that it is unclear what the language of the claim is intended to be directed to.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of control elements are arranged at least partially in rows.
Claim 20 recites: "The control unit as claimed in claim 13, wherein the control unit includes a gyroscope for detecting the orientation of the control unit and is designed to automatically adjust the assignment of the control elements depending on the orientation.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“for detecting the orientation of the control unit and is designed to automatically adjust the assignment of the control elements depending on the orientation
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The control unit as claimed in claim 13, wherein the control unit includes a gyroscope [intended for detecting the orientation of the control unit and is [intended to automatically adjust an assignment of ]].”
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, 7-16 and 18-20 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).
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 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).
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 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 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 control elements (Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 6, and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Valberg teaches that the control unit is an ISOBUS control unit (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Valberg teaches that the control unit operates multiple parts of an agricultural machine or multiple parts of different agricultural 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 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 (Valberg: see e.g. at least Fig. 4, and related text; Prejer: see e.g. at least Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Valberg teaches that the ISOBUS control unit is an ISOBUS-AUX-N control unit (Valberg: see e.g. at least ¶ 2).
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 [intended for detecting the orientation of the control unit and is [intended to automatically adjust an assignment 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 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 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