DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/12/2026. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 05/12/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding specification objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to the specification has been overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim objections:
Applicant has argued that the objections to claims 8, 10, and 15 have been overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objections accordingly; also note that claim 8 is now being treated on the merits because it is no longer an improper multiple dependent claim.
Regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has argued that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant has argued that the claims as amended should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103. Specifically, applicant has argued that Kassen fails to teach to “determine a change of the position difference,” because “Kassen discloses basing feedback on the absolute distance from a target position at a given moment, not on monitoring the position difference over time to detect whether that position difference is increasing or decreasing.” Applicant has also argued that the cited portion of Kassen ¶ 48 relates to a position difference between a current position and an obstacle rather than a position difference between a current position and target position as required by the claims.
This argument is persuasive and the examiner has withdrawn the rejections accordingly. However, new grounds of rejection have been applied based on newly cited prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic in dependence of the position difference.” However, this does not further limit claim 1, which recites “a control unit configured to… adjust a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic in dependence of the position difference.”
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 recites “wherein the control unit is configured to determine a change of the position difference; increase a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decrease the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.” This does not further limit claim 1, which recites “a control unit configured to… determine a change of the position difference; increase the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decrease the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.”
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 recites the steps of “determining a change of position difference; increasing a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decreasing the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.” This does not further limit claim 16, which recites “determining a change of the position difference; increasing the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decreasing the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-6, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen et al. (US 2017/0218600 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kassen, in view of Fahrenkopf et al. (US 2025/0110559 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fahrenkopf.
Regarding claim 1:
Kassen discloses the following limitations:
“A control system for controlling an agricultural machine, comprising: a user interface with a moveable input element; a feedback actuator for inducing a haptic feedback in the input element according to a force feedback characteristic; at least one actuator being controllable by the user interface; and a control unit.” (Kassen ¶¶ 35-36 and FIG. 1 reproduced below disclose a vehicle 10 in which a “Control system 18 includes a controller 20, an operator control 22, sensors 24 and actuators 26,” and where the “Operator control 22 may be in the form of a joystick 22 having feedback actuators, which may be electrical motors, hydraulic actuators, pneumatic actuators or the like.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
355
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“configured to: determine a current position of the at least one actuator; determine a target position of the at least one actuator; determine a position difference between the current position and the target position; adjust the force feedback characteristic in dependence of the position difference; adjust a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic in dependence of the position difference.” (Kassen ¶ 44: “at steps 802 and 804 it is determined respectively if the loader arm and the bucket are close to target positions and if so then the particular joystick has a change in the force feedback and/or a vibration applied (steps 806 and 808) to alert the operator that a target has been approached. … The magnitude of the force and/or vibration feedback is based on the velocity and/or distance from the target position.”)
Kassen does not explicitly disclose to “determine a change of the position difference; increase the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decrease the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.” However, Fahrenkopf does teach these limitations. (Fahrenkopf ¶ 77: “the feedback force 250 may decrease as the distance between the current position 254 of the second part 104 and the target position 258 decreases, and the feedback force 250 may increase as the distance between the current position of the second part 104 and the target position 258 increases.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kassen by increasing the feedback force as the position difference increases and decreasing the feedback force when the position difference decreases as taught by Fahrenkopf with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Fahrenkopf ¶ 65 teaches that “using the target position 258 and the feedback profile 260, the feedback determiner 252 may be configured to determine the feedback force 250 in a manner that helps the user position the second part 104 of the device 100 according to the target position 258.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the actual position moves closer to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which would be more difficult to achieve if the system were outputting a large resistance force.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 1,” and Kassen also teaches “wherein the control unit is configured to adjust a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic in dependence of the position difference.” (Kassen ¶ 44: “The magnitude of the force and/or vibration feedback is based on the velocity and/or distance from the target position.” Adjusting the magnitude of force feedback based on the distance from the target position teaches to adjust a resistance in dependence of the position difference as claimed.)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 3,” and Fahrenkopf further teaches “wherein the control unit is configured to determine a change of the position difference; increase a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decrease the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.” (Fahrenkopf ¶ 77: “the feedback force 250 may decrease as the distance between the current position 254 of the second part 104 and the target position 258 decreases, and the feedback force 250 may increase as the distance between the current position of the second part 104 and the target position 258 increases.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kassen by increasing the feedback force as the position difference increases and decreasing the feedback force when the position difference decreases as taught by Fahrenkopf with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Fahrenkopf ¶ 65 teaches that “using the target position 258 and the feedback profile 260, the feedback determiner 252 may be configured to determine the feedback force 250 in a manner that helps the user position the second part 104 of the device 100 according to the target position 258.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the actual position moves closer to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which would be more difficult to achieve if the system were outputting a large resistance force.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 3,” and Kassen also teaches “wherein the control unit is configured to adjust the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic at least partly according to a function.” (Kassen ¶ 44: “The magnitude of the force and/or vibration feedback is based on the velocity and/or distance from the target position.” Also, Kassen ¶ 48: “Then if joystick 22 is being directed in the direction that would bring machine 10 closer to the object (respectively steps 1108, 1110 or 1112), then the force feedback in that direction and/or the vibration actuator is activated, and may increase as the object is more closely approached. The force feedback can be in the form of an increased force feedback in the direction that relates to the position of a detected object.”)
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 5,” and Fahrenkopf also teaches “wherein the function is a linear, regressive, progressive or degressive function.” (Fahrenkopf ¶ 78 and FIG. 3B: “A second example of the feedback profile 260 is shown in FIG. 3B in which the force F indicated by the force profile is dependent on the position of the second part 104 along the axis X relative to the target position 258. In the example of FIG. 3B, the nominal force value 362 is indicated at locations that are spaced from the target position 258, and the value of the force F indicated by the feedback profile 260 is higher than the nominal force value 362 at the target position 258, as it increases progressively relative to the nominal force value 362 as the current position 254 of the second part 104 along the axis X approaches the target position 258.” This at least teaches the function being a progressive function as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 6, consistent with the specification, the function being “a linear, regressive, progressive or degressive function” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. As such, while only the progressive function has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kassen by using a progressive function for defining the haptic feedback as taught by Fahrenkopf, because this modification is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a progressive function for defining the haptic feedback force would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the feedback control system of Fahrenkopf or whether integrated into the implement control system of Kassen. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have used any suitable function to define the force feedback intensity, including a progressive function.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 1,” and Kassen also teaches “wherein the control unit is further configured to: … determine a current position of the input element.” (Kassen ¶ 36: “Controller 20 receives controlling information from joystick 22 as the operator moves joystick 22.”)
Kassen does not explicitly teach to “determine a set point position.” However, Fahrenkopf does teach this limitation. (Fahrenkopf ¶ 73: “The target position 258 may then be set according to the entity position as previously described, such as by setting the target position 258 such that the entity corresponding to the target position will be centered in the images obtained by the camera 120 and/or displayed on the display screen 124 when the second part 104 is move to the target position 258.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kassen by allowing the operator to set a target position as taught by Fahrenkopf with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Fahrenkopf ¶ 65 teaches that by setting the target position, then “using the target position 258 and the feedback profile 260, the feedback determiner 252 may be configured to determine the feedback force 250 in a manner that helps the user position the second part 104 of the device 100 according to the target position 258.”
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “the control system of claim 1,” and Kassen also teaches “An agricultural machine comprising the control system.” (Kassen ¶ 35 and FIG. 1 disclose a vehicle 10 that comprises a control system 18. Also, Kassen ¶¶ 5 and 10 describe agricultural applications of the system.)
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The method of claim 16,” and Fahrenkopf further discloses the method “further comprising: determining a change of position difference; increasing a resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference increases; and decreasing the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic when the position difference decreases.” (Fahrenkopf ¶ 77: “the feedback force 250 may decrease as the distance between the current position 254 of the second part 104 and the target position 258 decreases, and the feedback force 250 may increase as the distance between the current position of the second part 104 and the target position 258 increases.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kassen by increasing the feedback force as the position difference increases and decreasing the feedback force when the position difference decreases as taught by Fahrenkopf with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Fahrenkopf ¶ 65 teaches that “using the target position 258 and the feedback profile 260, the feedback determiner 252 may be configured to determine the feedback force 250 in a manner that helps the user position the second part 104 of the device 100 according to the target position 258.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the actual position moves closer to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which would be more difficult to achieve if the system were outputting a large resistance force.
Claims 2 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen in view of Fahrenkopf as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Garcia (EP 4 129 037 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, Garcia does teach these limitations:
“wherein the control system comprises a hitch system being moveable between an upper limit and a lower limit.” (Garcia ¶ 45: “The working machine 1 is designed to couple an attachment by means of which a field can be cultivated. For example, the attachment could be a baler, a plow, or a harrow.” Additionally, Garcia ¶ 30: “The respective lifting mechanism is preferably located between an upper end position designated as the road operating position or Maximum lifting position, in which the lifting mechanism is essentially raised to its maximum extent for its protection, and a lower end position referred to as the working position. Minimum stroke position, in which the lifting mechanism for coupling the attachment is essentially lowered to its maximum extent, in particular infinitely adjustable.”)
“and wherein the at least one actuator is configured to adjust the hitch system according to an operation of the user interface.” (Garcia ¶ 58: “a user of the working machine 1 can set the current lifting position of an active lifting mechanism 2, 3, 4 by operating the control element 6.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf by applying the system to a machine with an adjustable hitch as taught by Garcia, because this modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the hitch of Garcia) for another (i.e., the attached implement of Kassen) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the attached implement of Kassen with the adjustable hitch of Garcia to achieve the predictable result of applying the system to work with a broader range of implements that can be detachably coupled to the machine.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches “The control system of claim 5,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the force feedback characteristic comprises at least one ripple defining a ripple resistance, and wherein the control unit is configured to adjust the ripple resistance of the at least one ripple for adjusting the resistance defined by the force feedback characteristic.” However, Garcia does teach these limitations. (Garcia ¶ 56: “different vibration intervals can follow each other immediately, or they can be separated by intervals in which no vibration is generated, i.e., frequency and intensity are zero (i.e., a pulsed vibration). Furthermore, the different vibration intervals can differ from each other by vibration with different intensity and/or frequency, or they can have vibration with the same intensity and/or frequency.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf by using a series of vibration intervals with adjustable intensity as is taught by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Garcia ¶ 16 teaches that “a vibration represents a very clearly perceptible haptic signal that the user can perceive almost immediately during but also after actuating the control element. Furthermore, a variety of different vibration characteristics can be generated via the parameters intensity and frequency, which can be used to give the user feedback on a wide variety of setting processes.”
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Kassen, Fahrenkopf, and Garcia teaches “The control system of claim 7,” and Garcia also teaches “wherein the control unit is configured to adjust the ripple resistance of the at least one ripple in alignment with the function.” (Garcia ¶¶ 70-71: “During the actuation of the control element 6, specifically at a time t11 when the target stroke position of the active lifting mechanism 2, 3, 4 assumes a first threshold value P11, the device 19 begins to generate the first vibration characteristic. … The first vibration characteristic has in particular three successive vibration intervals, which preferably follow each other immediately. The first vibration interval is characterized by a vibration whose intensity increases continuously and proportionally from zero to a first intensity value I11 (i.e. a linearly increasing oscillation). A second vibration interval following the first vibration interval is characterized by a vibration whose intensity constantly assumes a second intensity value I12 over the interval, the magnitude of which is higher than that of the first intensity value I11 (i.e. a harmonic oscillation). A third vibration interval following the second vibration interval is characterized by a vibration with the intensity of the vibration of the second vibration interval (i.e., a harmonic oscillation).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf by using a series of vibration intervals that follow a function as taught by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Garcia ¶ 16 teaches that “a vibration represents a very clearly perceptible haptic signal that the user can perceive almost immediately during but also after actuating the control element. Furthermore, a variety of different vibration characteristics can be generated via the parameters intensity and frequency, which can be used to give the user feedback on a wide variety of setting processes.”
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Kassen, Fahrenkopf, and Garcia teaches “The control system of claim 7,” and Garcia also teaches “wherein the control unit is further configured to: determine a ripple addition for the at least one ripple in dependence of the position difference; and increase the ripple resistance of the at least one ripple by the ripple addition.” (Garcia ¶¶ 70-72 and annotated FIG. 7 below disclose that as the lifting position approaches the “predetermined maximum stroke position” Pvmax, the vibration intensity increases from “a first intensity value” I11 to “a second intensity value” I12. The difference between the first and second intensity values corresponds to the recited “ripple addition.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
598
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf by increasing the ripple by a ripple addition as the position approaches the predetermined position as taught by Garcia with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Garcia ¶ 73 teaches that this “prevents the user from continuing to operate the control element 6 unnecessarily long, even though the desired target stroke position of the active lifting mechanism 2, 3, 4 has already been set. Furthermore, it allows the user to recognize that the target stroke position is changing in the direction of the predefinable or predefinable maximum stroke position.”
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Kassen, Fahrenkopf, and Garcia teaches “The control system of claim 9,” and Fahrenkopf also teaches “wherein the ripple addition of the at least one ripple is higher when the position difference is greater.” (Fahrenkopf ¶ 77: “the feedback force 250 may decrease as the distance between the current position 254 of the second part 104 and the target position 258 decreases, and the feedback force 250 may increase as the distance between the current position of the second part 104 and the target position 258 increases.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Garcia by using a larger ripple addition force as the position difference is greater as taught by Fahrenkopf with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Fahrenkopf ¶ 65 teaches that “using the target position 258 and the feedback profile 260, the feedback determiner 252 may be configured to determine the feedback force 250 in a manner that helps the user position the second part 104 of the device 100 according to the target position 258.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the actual position moves closer to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which would be more difficult to achieve if the system were outputting a large resistance force.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Kassen, Fahrenkopf, and Garcia teaches “The control system of claim 9,” and Fahrenkopf also teaches “wherein the control unit is further configured to: increase the ripple addition when the position difference increases; and decrease the ripple addition when the position difference decreases.” (Fahrenkopf ¶ 77: “the feedback force 250 may decrease as the distance between the current position 254 of the second part 104 and the target position 258 decreases, and the feedback force 250 may increase as the distance between the current position of the second part 104 and the target position 258 increases.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Garcia by increasing the ripple addition when the position difference increases and decreasing the ripple addition when the position difference decreases as taught by Fahrenkopf with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Fahrenkopf ¶ 65 teaches that “using the target position 258 and the feedback profile 260, the feedback determiner 252 may be configured to determine the feedback force 250 in a manner that helps the user position the second part 104 of the device 100 according to the target position 258.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the actual position moves closer to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which would be more difficult to achieve if the system were outputting a large resistance force.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen in view of Fahrenkopf as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Battlogg (US 2022/0283602 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf teaches The control system of claim 12,” but does not explicitly teach the limitations that are listed below. However, Battlogg does teach these limitations:
“wherein the set point position is adjustable.” (Battlogg ¶¶ 37-39: “the control device is suitable and configured to fix the operator control lever at at least one settable detent position and preferably at a multiplicity of dynamically determinable detent positions… any desired number of detent positions that can be implemented by means of the brake device can be set at any desired positions in the operational pivoting range of the pivot lever.”)
“and wherein the control unit is configured to: assign a set point ripple of the force feedback characteristic to the set point position; and adjust the position of the set point ripple according to the adjustment of the set point position.” (Battlogg ¶ 40: “The control device is in particular suitable and configured to increase the retardation moment proceeding already from a defined pivot angle before a detent position is reached, and/or to reduce the retardation moment proceeding from a defined pivot angle after the detent position has been departed from. The increase and/or reduction may be implemented in continuous or variable fashion.” Additionally, Battlogg ¶ 30 discloses that “The haptic signal particularly preferably comprises at least the defined sequence, described in the context of the present invention, of (rapidly) changing retardation moments or forces at the human-machine interface (also referred to as ripples/ticks/raster). For example, a state of the vehicle or of the machine can be communicated in this way.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf by allowing the operator to set a detent position of the control lever and then adjusting the feedback ripple according to the detent position as taught by Battlogg with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Battlogg ¶ 38 teaches that with this modification, “The user is provided with individual and adapted feedback in accordance with the intended use. This increases the operator control convenience and reduces incorrect operator control actions. By means of the detent positions, the inputs can be performed particularly intuitively and precisely.”
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Kassen, Fahrenkopf, and Battlogg teaches “The control system of claim 13,” and Battlogg further teaches “wherein the set point ripple has a ripple resistance being higher than a ripple resistance of a ripple adjacent to the set point ripple.” (Battlogg ¶ 40: “The control device is in particular suitable and configured to increase the retardation moment proceeding already from a defined pivot angle before a detent position is reached, and/or to reduce the retardation moment proceeding from a defined pivot angle after the detent position has been departed from.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Kassen and Fahrenkopf by using a stronger ripple resistance at the set detent point as taught by Battlogg with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Battlogg ¶ 38 teaches that with this modification, “The user is provided with individual and adapted feedback in accordance with the intended use. This increases the operator control convenience and reduces incorrect operator control actions. By means of the detent positions, the inputs can be performed particularly intuitively and precisely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights