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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White, US 2022/0078963 A1, in view of Ochenas, et al., US 2018/0143734 A1.
As per Claim 1, White teaches a parameter management system for a work vehicle (¶¶ 65-66), the parameter management system comprising:
a display panel provided for the work vehicle (¶ 68; “display/CPU member”) and configured to display information on a state of the work vehicle (¶¶ 70-71); and
a non-volatile memory configured to store a plurality of control parameters each for use to control a device provided for the work vehicle (¶ 75; as part of memory 190 of Figure 7);
a manual operation member for use to select a control parameter to be displayed on the display panel (¶¶ 72, 81; through “graphical user interface 216” of Figure 7).
White does not expressly teach: a changed parameter manager configured to, in response to an operation of the manual operation member, set a value for a control parameter displayed on the display panel and write the value into the non-volatile memory. Ochenas teaches: a changed parameter manager configured to, in response to an operation of the manual, operation member, set a value for a control parameter displayed on the display panel (¶¶ 38-39; e.g., “for controlling a rack height select function”) and write the value into the non-volatile memory (¶¶ 44, 47). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the control system of White with the setting change system of Ochenas, in order to remember particular desired operational settings and map them to particular working locations.
As per Claim 2, White teaches that the display panel is configured to display a value of the control parameter for the device in a maintenance mode to which the parameter management system transitions from a normal display mode in response to a special operation signal (¶ 126; as the operator adjusts “one or more computerized aspects of the intelligent control 152” of Figure 4).
As per Claim 3, White teaches that the special operation signal is generated based on a command hidden from a general user (¶ 123; as “alerts 216E not requiring immediate attention can be hidden during agricultural operations” as shown in Figure 14).
As per Claim 4, White teaches that the changed parameter manager updates the value of the control parameter based on a detection signal from a sensor configured to detect at least one predetermined state of the device (¶¶ 102-103).
As per Claim 5, White teaches that the at least one predetermined state comprises a plurality of predetermined states comprising a first predetermined state and a second predetermined state (¶¶ 113, 116, 120; between mapped view 216A of Figure 14 and detailed view 216B of Figure 15), and in response to a particular operation of the manual operation member, the display panel switches from displaying the first predetermined state to displaying the second predetermined state (¶ 117; “in preferred embodiments, the farmer is given an ability to easily navigate between rows to see performance of the row and/or nearby rows”).
As per Claim 6, White teaches a work vehicle, comprising: a parameter management system according to claim 1 (¶ 57; tractor 100 of Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights