DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the legibility of Figs. 5 and 6 would be improved by the addition of yes/no labels for the "Match?" box. 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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam (US 6085134) in view of Kleindienst et al. (DE 102005003995).
Claim 1.
Adam teaches:
a vehicle controller mounted within an operator cab of the utility vehicle
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 11-16) “the farming tractor 1 in the region of its cockpit 5 has an arrangement for controlling adjusting elements as shown in FIG. 2. The arrangement includes a control unit 18 with a micro processor 9, a write-read memory 20 (RAM), a read-only-memory 20’ (ROM), as well as an interface 21.”
a control circuit having a processor and a memory unit configured to store a programmable sequence, the programmable sequence including a first operation and a second operation
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 11-16) “the farming tractor 1 in the region of its cockpit 5 has an arrangement for controlling adjusting elements as shown in FIG. 2. The arrangement includes a control unit 18 with a micro processor 9, a write-read memory 20 (RAM), a read-only-memory 20’ (ROM), as well as an interface 21.”
a user interface comprising
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
the first operation
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
the second operation
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
While Adam teaches a warning light for when a step is omitted (Adam – Col. 5, lines 9-13), Adam does not explicitly teach a plurality of interactive indicators. However, Kleindienst et al. teaches:
a user interface comprising a plurality of interactive indicators, wherein the plurality of interactive indicators include at least one user interface icon and the plurality of interactive indicators correspond to a plurality of actuators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
an illumination element, wherein the illumination element is configured to selectively illuminate each of the plurality of interactive indicators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
the first operation includes illuminating a first interactive indicator of the plurality of interactive indicators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
the second operation includes illuminating a second interactive indicator of the plurality of interactive indicators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the control unit of Adam with the indicator lighting of Kleindienst. Adam teaches the generic use of a warning light based on the omission of a step; therefore, one possessing ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Adam with the component-specific indicator lights of Kleindienst et al. could be made with predictable results (i.e., a control sequence with indicator lights for the component being controlled). One would have been motivated to do this in order to allow a user to control multiple vehicle components in an intuitive fashion using one set of controls (Kleindienst – [0003]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Adam further teaches:
the control circuit includes a power mechanism configured to initiate a plurality of vehicle functions
(Adam – Col. 4, lines 2-4) “Subsequently following operating elements are actuated one after the other to return to the working position.”
Claim 7.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Adam further teaches:
the vehicle controller executes the programmable sequence and initiates the second operation after the first operation has been initiated
(Adam – Col. 4, lines 2-4) “Subsequently following operating elements are actuated one after the other to return to the working position.”
Claim 15.
Adam teaches:
providing a plurality of
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
receiving a first selection of the first interactive indicator
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
initiating a first vehicle function of the plurality of vehicle functions after receiving the first selection of the first interactive indicator and providing a second sensory indicator of the first operation in the vehicle startup sequence
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
initiating a second vehicle function of the plurality of vehicle functions after receiving a second selection of the second interactive indicator and providing the second sensory indicator of the second operation in the vehicle startup sequence
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
While Adam teaches a warning light for when a step is omitted (Adam – Col. 5, lines 9-13), Adam does not explicitly teach a plurality of interactive indicators. However, Kleindienst et al. teaches:
providing a plurality of interactive indicators on a user interface, the plurality of interactive indicators corresponding to a plurality of vehicle functions
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
providing a first sensory indicator for a first operation in a vehicle startup sequence, wherein the first operation in the vehicle startup sequence includes selecting a first interactive indicator of the plurality of interactive indicators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
providing the first sensory indicator for a second operation in the vehicle startup sequence after initiating the first vehicle function, wherein the second operation in the vehicle startup sequence includes selecting a second interactive indicator of the plurality of interactive indicators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 19.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Kleindienst et al. further teaches:
the first sensory indicator is a pulsating illumination and the second sensory indicator is a solid illumination
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval.”
[Examiner’s Note: Whether the solid illumination precedes the pulsating illumination or vice versa is a design choice, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus recognized that these indicators could be arranged as desired.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 20.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Adam further teaches:
initiating the second operation in the vehicle startup sequence occurs after initiating the first operation in the vehicle startup sequence
(Adam – Col. 4, lines 2-4) “Subsequently following operating elements are actuated one after the other to return to the working position.”
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Vitale et al. (US 20070203630).
Claim 3.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Neither Adam nor Kleindienst et al. explicitly teaches an operator presence sensor; however, Vitale et al. teaches:
the processor is in communication with an operator presence sensor, which is configured to detect a presence of a vehicle operator
(Vitale – [0014]) “the operator can be in a conventional driving mode and seated in seat 20 so that seat sensor 30 communicates an “operator-present” signal to electronic controller 18, which enables the work machine”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the control unit of Adam with the presence sensor of Vitale et al. Both Adam and Vitale et al. are directed towards control of a work machine; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the safety of the work machine by ensuring operator oversight of any command input.
Claim 4.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Vitale et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Vitale et al. further teaches:
the operator presence sensor is a switch in communication with a seat of the utility vehicle
(Vitale – [0014]) “the operator can be in a conventional driving mode and seated in seat 20 so that seat sensor 30 communicates an “operator-present” signal to electronic controller 18, which enables the work machine”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 3.
Claim 16.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Neither Adam nor Kleindienst et al. explicitly teaches an operator presence sensor; however, Vitale et al. teaches:
receiving a signal from an operator presence sensor for detecting a presence of an operator, wherein the first sensory indicator of the first operation in the vehicle startup sequence is provided in response to sensing the presence of the operator
(Vitale – [0014]) “the operator can be in a conventional driving mode and seated in seat 20 so that seat sensor 30 communicates an “operator-present” signal to electronic controller 18, which enables the work machine”
Claim(s) 5, 6, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Breuer et al. (US 20220350892).
Claim 5.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Adam teaches a programmable sequence, Adam does not explicitly teach a programmable startup sequence. However, Breuer et al. teaches:
the programmable sequence includes a vehicle startup sequence that comprises a plurality of operations configured to provide power to the utility vehicle, initiate an engine, and enable one or more functions of the utility vehicle
(Breuer – Claim 1) “initiating an initialization process for the display; automatically placing the power machine in a startup mode during the initialization process; providing limited access to power machine functionality according to permissions of the startup mode; and after the initialization process is completed, requesting a passcode to allow access to additional power machine functionality.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the control unit of Adam to perform the startup mode of Breuer et al. Both Adam and Breuer et al. are directed towards controlling machine processes; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this modification could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because the startup process of Breuer et al. prevents operators from being required to delay the start of their work (Breuer – [0002]).
Claim 6.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Breuer et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Breuer et al. further teaches:
the first operation, the first interactive indicator, and a first actuator correspond with providing power to the utility vehicle
(Breuer – Claim 1) “initiating an initialization process for the display”
the second operation, the second interactive indicator, and a second actuator correspond to initiating the engine
(Breuer – Claim 1) “providing limited access to power machine functionality”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 5.
Claim 17.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Neither Adam nor Kleindienst et al. explicitly teaches powering the utility vehicle; however, Breuer et al. teaches:
powering the utility vehicle is the first operation in the vehicle startup sequence
(Breuer – Claim 1) “initiating an initialization process for the display”
initiating an engine of the utility vehicle is the second operation in the vehicle startup sequence
(Breuer – Claim 1) “providing limited access to power machine functionality”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 5.
Claim 18.
The combination of Adam and Kleindienst et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Neither Adam nor Kleindienst et al. explicitly teaches enabling a remainder of vehicle functions; however, Breuer et al. teaches:
illuminating each of the plurality of interactive indicators and enabling a remainder of the plurality of vehicle functions after initiating the second vehicle function and detecting a completion of the vehicle startup sequence
(Breuer – [0065]) “After the initialization process is completed, the method 300 can include allowing access 350 to additional power machine functionality based on input received by the input device.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 5.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam in view of Kleindienst et al. in view of Vitale et al.
Claim 8.
Adam teaches:
a vehicle controller comprising a user interface and a control circuit wherein the interface is configured to receive an operator input
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 11-16) “the farming tractor 1 in the region of its cockpit 5 has an arrangement for controlling adjusting elements as shown in FIG. 2. The arrangement includes a control unit 18 with a micro processor 9, a write-read memory 20 (RAM), a read-only-memory 20’ (ROM), as well as an interface 21.”
the control circuit comprising a processor and a memory configured to store a programmable sequence, wherein the processor is in communication with the operator presence sensor and the user interface
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 56-58) “control signals are outputted through the bus system 29 to the control unit 18 and stored in a coded form in a storage region of the RAM memory 20.”
enable at least one of a plurality of functions of the utility vehicle
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
While Adam teaches a warning light for when a step is omitted (Adam – Col. 5, lines 9-13), Adam does not explicitly teach a plurality of interactive indicators. However, Kleindienst et al. teaches:
selectively illuminate the user interface
(Kleindienst – [0017]) “if the driver presses button 18 while the lights 2 to 4 are illuminated, the light 2 on the left exterior mirror 21 will illuminate first for a predetermined time interval.”
selectively illuminate the user interface based on the operator input
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
iteratively update a status of the programmable sequence based on the output of the operator presence sensor and the operator input
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
enable at least one of a plurality of functions of the utility vehicle and selectively illuminate the user interface based on the status of the programmable sequence
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Neither Adam nor Kleindienst et al. explicitly teaches an operator presence sensor; however, Vitale et al. teaches:
an operator seat in communication with an operation presence sensor
(Vitale – [0014]) “the operator can be in a conventional driving mode and seated in seat 20 so that seat sensor 30 communicates an “operator-present” signal to electronic controller 18, which enables the work machine”
the user interface based on an output of the operator presence sensor
(Vitale – [0014]) “the operator can be in a conventional driving mode and seated in seat 20 so that seat sensor 30 communicates an “operator-present” signal to electronic controller 18, which enables the work machine”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 3.
Claim 10.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Vitale et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Kleindienst et al. further teaches:
wherein the user interface includes a plurality of interactive indicators
(Kleindienst – [0001]) “controlling a first vehicle component with an associated first lighting device to indicate the controllability of the first vehicle component and a second vehicle component with an associated second lighting device to indicate the controllability of the second vehicle component”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 11.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Vitale et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Kleindienst et al. further teaches:
the selective illumination of the user interface includes one or more of a pulsating illumination or a solid illumination
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 12.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Vitale et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Adam further teaches:
the processor updates the status of the programmable sequence if the operator input matches a next operation in the programmable sequence
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53 and Col. 4, lines 2-4) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element. … Subsequently following operating elements are actuated one after the other to return to the working position.”
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Vitale et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Breuer et al.
Claim 9.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., and Vitale et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches a passcode; however, Breuer et al. teaches:
the at least one of the plurality of functions of the utility vehicle is enabled after a passcode is entered via the user interface
(Breuer – [0029]) “Entering the passcode will end the temporary security bypass mode and allow for normal operation of the power machine.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 5.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 14.
The combination of Adam, Kleindienst et al., Vitale et al., and Breuer et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Adam further teaches:
a first operation,
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
a second operation,
(Adam – Col. 3, lines 50-53) “the operator must actuate during a first working sequence in correspondence with the input sequence plan of FIG. 3, the corresponding operational button for controlling the corresponding adjusting element.”
Adam does not explicitly teach an interactive indicator; however, Kleindienst et al. further teaches:
a first interactive indicator, and a first actuator correspond with a first vehicle function of the programmable sequence
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
a second interactive indicator, and a second actuator correspond to a second vehicle function of the programmable sequence
(Kleindienst – [0020]) “If the driver presses button 18 while a single light is illuminated, the corresponding light will begin to flash for a predetermined time interval. This informs the driver that during this time interval he has the opportunity to control the vehicle component associated with the lighting device”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
