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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 3/9/2026. Claims 1, 3 & 7 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-7 & 9-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 & 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings—specifically figures 3-5--are objected to because they fail to show sufficient and/or proper/adequate details as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 & 9-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The following language in the claims below are not clearly understood, as such they render the claims indefinite:
As per claim 1: the claim recites: “…a WLAN connection is established to a mobile terminal (5) with a user interface for displaying machine-specific information and inputting machine-specific commands, or a WLAN connection is established to a second device (4b) on another agricultural machine (1) with a user interface for displaying machine-specific information and inputting machine-specific commands…”. Here, it is clear that the “or” makes the 2nd device optional, but then the claim proceeds to recite “wherein an ISOBUS client with VT mask and AUX inputs and outputs are located on the first and second devices (4a, 4b)”. It is unclear how the 2nd device can be optional yet initially yet the amended feature makes the 2nd device a requirement. For purposes of examination the examiner can not determine what is meant here (i.e., the claims are replete with indefinite language). The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. There are various ways to interpret the formulaic language, each interpretation yielding different element relationships/modification. Therefore, examiner will not attempt examine claim 5 over the prior art for each plausible interpretation. Once applicant has corrected the indefinite subject matter, a prior art rejection may be issued. It should be noted that if such a rejection is issued, it will not be considered a new grounds of rejection.
As per claims 2-6 & 9-11 they all depend from claim 1 and as such are rejected for having the same deficiencies as those presented above with respect to claim 1.
The claims 1-7 & 9-11 contains the trademark/trade name CAN WIFI, ISOBUS CLIENT, VT mask, WLAN and ISO11783. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a connection mode between devices, a means of providing interoperability between devices, a unified control interface/screen, and a communication system for agricultural equipment (respectfully), accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights