DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 10/09/2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/16/2024 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the term “BLUETOOTH,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, it appears that the phrase “wherein the ripple addition of the at least one ripple is the higher” should be changed to “wherein the ripple addition of the at least one ripple is [[the]] higher.”
In claim 15, it appears that “a control system of claim 1” should be changed to “[[a]] the control system of claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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. Claim 10 recites “the ripple addition of the at least one ripple is the higher, the more distant the at least one ripple is from the current position of the at least one actuator.” However, it is unclear how the ripple can be more or less distant from the current position of the at least one actuator, which leads to indefiniteness. More specifically, it is unclear whether the ripple is being emitted from different locations that could be more or less distant from the actuator(s), or whether another term was intended to be used in place of “the at least one ripple.” For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as if it instead recited that “the ripple addition of the at least one ripple is [[the]] higher, the more the position difference increases.” Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kassen et al. (US 2017/0218600 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kassen.
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
359
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; and adjust 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.”)
Regarding claim 3:
Kassen discloses “The control system of claim 1,” and Kassen further discloses “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 5:
Kassen discloses “The control system of claim 3,” and Kassen also discloses “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 15:
Kassen discloses “a control system of claim 1,” and Kassen also discloses “An agricultural machine comprising” such a 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.
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 2, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Garcia (EP 4 129 037 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Kassen discloses “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 of Kassen by applying the system to a machine with an adjustable hitch as taught by Garcia, because this is 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 6:
Kassen discloses “The control system of claim 5,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the function is a linear, regressive, progressive or degressive function.” However, Garcia does teach this limitation. (Garcia ¶ 71: “The first vibration interval is characterized by a vibration whose intensity increases continuously and proportionally from zero to a first intensity value I<sub>11</sub> (i.e. a linearly increasing oscillation).” This at least teaches the function being a linear 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. Accordingly, while only the linear 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 linear function for defining the haptic feedback as taught by Garcia, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a linear function for defining the haptic feedback force would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the lifting mechanism control system of Garcia or whether integrated into the implement control system of Kassen. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have used any suitable function for defining the haptic feedback intensity, including a linear function.
Regarding claim 7:
Kassen discloses “The control system of claim 1,” but does not explicitly disclose “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 teaches 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 of Kassen by using a series of vibration intervals with adjustable intensity 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 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 of Kassen 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.”
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen as applied to claims 3 and 16 above, and further in view of Tarasinski et al. (US 2009/0018730 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tarasinski.
Regarding claim 4:
Kassen discloses “The control system of claim 3,” and Kassen also discloses “wherein the control unit is configured to determine a change of the position difference.” (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.”)
Kassen does not specifically disclose to “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.” However, Tarasinski does teach these limitations. (Tarasinski ¶ 12: “The adjusting device may be operated in two different ways. On the one hand, it may generate a displacement resistance and/or an amplitude and/or frequency of the mechanical activation of the pedal, which is proportional to the difference between the current position of the pedal and a calculated, optimal position of the pedal.”)
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 changing the feedback force to be proportional with the position difference as taught by Tarasinski with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that when the actual position is close to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which could be more difficult to achieve if the interface is outputting a large resistance force.
Regarding claim 17:
Kassen discloses “The method of claim 16,” and Kassen also discloses the method “further comprising: determining a change of position difference.” (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.”)
Kassen does not explicitly disclose “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.” However, Tarasinski does teach these limitations. (Tarasinski ¶ 12: “The adjusting device may be operated in two different ways. On the one hand, it may generate a displacement resistance and/or an amplitude and/or frequency of the mechanical activation of the pedal, which is proportional to the difference between the current position of the pedal and a calculated, optimal position of the pedal.” The examiner notes that “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” are contingent limitations consistent with MPEP 2111.04(II), where only one of the two steps needs to occur. Regardless, the examiner notes that Tarasinski teaches both steps. The examiner also notes that this interpretation does not apply to claim 4 because it is a system claim that requires structure to perform the steps regardless of whether the steps actually occur.)
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 changing the feedback force to be proportional with the position difference as taught by Tarasinski with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that when the actual position is close to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which could be more difficult to achieve if the interface is outputting a large resistance force.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen in view of Garcia as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tarasinski et al. (US 2009/0018730 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tarasinski.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Kassen and Garcia teaches “The control system of claim 9,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the ripple addition of the at least one ripple is the higher, the more [the position difference increases].” However, Tarasinski does teach this limitation. (Tarasinski ¶ 12: “The adjusting device may be operated in two different ways. On the one hand, it may generate a displacement resistance and/or an amplitude and/or frequency of the mechanical activation of the pedal, which is proportional to the difference between the current position of the pedal and a calculated, optimal position of the pedal.” Also, Tarasinski ¶ 30 states that “the pedal could be acted upon by a force impulse,” which teaches that the adjustable resistance can be applied to work with ripple feedback as claimed.)
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 changing the ripple to be proportional with the position difference as taught by Tarasinski with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that when the actual position is close to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which could be more difficult to achieve if the interface is outputting a large resistance force.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Kassen and Garcia teaches “The control system of claim 9,” but does not explicitly teach “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.” However, Tarasinski does teach these limitations. (Tarasinski ¶ 12: “The adjusting device may be operated in two different ways. On the one hand, it may generate a displacement resistance and/or an amplitude and/or frequency of the mechanical activation of the pedal, which is proportional to the difference between the current position of the pedal and a calculated, optimal position of the pedal.” Also, Tarasinski ¶ 30 states that “the pedal could be acted upon by a force impulse,” which teaches that the adjustable resistance can be applied to work with ripple feedback as claimed.)
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 changing the ripple to be proportional with the position difference as taught by Tarasinski with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that when the actual position is close to the target position, the user would need to use more precise, fine-tuned inputs to achieve the target position, which could be more difficult to achieve if the interface is outputting a large resistance force.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Battlogg (US 2022/0283602 A1).
Regarding claim 12:
Kassen discloses “The control system of claim 1,” and Kassen also discloses “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 disclose to “determine a set point position.” However, Battlogg does teach this limitation. (Battlogg ¶ 37: “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.”)
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 position of the control lever 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 13:
The combination of Kassen and Battlogg teaches The control system of claim 12,” and Battlogg also teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the set point position is adjustable.” (Battlogg ¶ 39: “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 of Kassen 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 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 of Kassen 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