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 .
Claims 1-15 are currently under review.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britain on June 10, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2408266.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 9, 2025 and November 19, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 7, 9, and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 1: “A human machine interface for controlling an agricultural machine, comprising:”
Claim 1, line 5: “a proximity sensor for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first input element”
Claim 1, line 8: “checking
Claims 7, 9, 11, 13-14, line 1: each require the following change “further comprising:
each first line requires a colon symbol after comprising
Claim 12, line 2: “the first control module and/or the second control module are a button control module, a rocker control”
Claim 15, line 2: “comprising:”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Figure 4 and paragraph 65 of the specification indicates that “the control unit 226 comprises an I/O interface 401, a controller 402 and a memory 403. The I/O interface 401, the controller 402 and the memory 403 may be attached to a printed circuit board (PCB). The control unit 226 may receive and send signals or data via the I/O interface 401. The I/O interface 401 may be a wireless interface or a connector”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronberg (Pub. No.: US 2015/0314684 A1) in view of Miedl et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0035473 A1) hereinafter referred to as Miedl.
With respect to Claim 1, Kronberg teaches a human machine interface (fig. 1, items 104a, 104b, and 104f) for controlling an agricultural machine (¶37, “FIG. 1 shows a perspective view of the cockpit of an exemplary vehicle, here illustrated as a construction vehicle, e.g. an excavator” – excavators are commonly used in agriculture for tasks like grading land and moving dirt), comprising a first input element (fig. 1, item 104b) being distant from a reference point (fig. 1, reference point is near the base of item 104b); a second input element (fig. 1, item 104f) being more distant from the reference point than the first input element; a proximity sensor (fig. 3C, item 110: proximity sensors) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first and/or second input element (¶48, “The proximity sensors may for example be capacitive sensors that sense the touch of the operator or it could be ultrasonic sensors or infrared sensors that could sense the hand from a distance … it would also be possible to keep the proximity sensors separated from the operational interface, for example it would enable one sensor covering a larger area, e.g. even to cover user proximity to any operational interface to the vehicle”); and a control unit (¶37; ¶40) configured for checking for each input element whether the approaching hand is at a close distance (fig. 4; ¶43; ¶48; ¶49, “The control unit then again goes to step S5 controlling the HUD to display a new vehicle function status”).
Kronberg teaches the human machine interface principle is applied to a cockpit of a car and a truck (figs. 5a and 5b; ¶56) and a construction vehicle (fig. 1), however Kronberg does not explicitly mention checking whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance.
Miedl teaches a human interface machine for controlling a car, comprising: an input element (figs. 1 and 3, item 20) being distant from a reference point (reference point is a point between the front passenger seats); a proximity sensor (fig. 3, item 12; ¶20, “A proximity sensor 12 in the form of an optical camera, which is connected for information transfer to the apparatus 20, is arranged in a roof operating module”) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first input element; and a control unit (fig. 1, item 6; ¶18) configured for checking for the input element whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance (¶20, “makes it possible to ascertain a distance of the user 11 from the apparatus 20 being undershot (“approach” or “proximity”) and in this way enables the apparatus 20 to prepare a touch-based operation on the part of the user 11”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the human machine interface of Kronberg, to check whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance, as taught by Miedl, so as to prevent delays (¶18) and prepare for a touch-based operation (¶20).
With respect to Claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches wherein the control unit (¶40) is configured for executing a function assigned to the input element to which the approaching hand is in close distance (¶49, “The detection of the hand 115 in proximity to the second operational interface 104b, i.e. the joystick, triggers step S2 in FIG. 4, detecting an intention to control the second operational interface 104b. The control unit then again goes to step S5 controlling the HUD to display a new vehicle function status” – there are two functions assigned to an input element, the first function is to display the vehicle function status corresponding to the input and the second function is operating the excavator/vehicle/machine).
With respect to Claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches wherein the control unit is configured for omitting an execution of a function assigned to the first input element to which the approaching hand is in close distance if the approaching hand is in far distance to the second input element (¶49, if the hand is not in proximity to the second operation interface 104b then the HUD does not display a new vehicle function status).
With respect to Claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches wherein the control unit is configured for determining a touch of the first input element (¶38, “Further vehicle functions have stepless states and are advantageously controlled by wheels, touchpads, touchscreen or joysticks such as the already mentioned first 104a and second 104b operational interface in FIG. 1”); and executing the function assigned to the first input element in response to the touch (¶9; ¶10, “by laying the hand on the shift stick, the driver may see what gear is in use, or when picking up a ringing mobile phone the caller ID may be displayed at the display, when lifting a bucket with sand in an excavator the weight of the load may be displayed”) irrespectively if the approaching hand is in far distance to the second input element (fig. 2c and fig. 3c; fig. 4; ¶48).
With respect to Claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches wherein the control unit is configured for executing a function assigned to the second input element if the approaching hand is in close distance to the first input element and the second input element (¶12; ¶22).
With respect to Claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches comprising an arm support (fig. 1, left side cushion adjacent to item 104b) for resting an arm of the operator; wherein the first input element (fig. 1, item 104b) is located in a first approaching zone (fig. 1, first approaching zone is within vicinity of item 104b); the second input element (fig. 1, item 104f) is located in a second approaching zone (fig. 1, second approaching zone is within vicinity of item 104f); the first approaching zone and the second approaching zone being reachable by the hand of the operator with his arm resting on the arm support (fig. 1, when operator’s elbow is resting at the edge of the cushion, the operator is able to grasp either 104b or 104f); wherein the control unit (¶37; ¶40) is configured for determining whether the input element determining the approaching hand is located in a first approaching zone or in the second approaching zone (¶48-49).
With respect to Claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches wherein the first input element (fig. 1, item 104b) is part of a first control module (¶38, “The first 104a and a second 104b operational interface are here illustrated by joysticks”; the left joystick is the first control module); and the second input element (fig. 1, item 1044) is part of a second control module (¶9, “an operational interface shall be interpreted as any means for controlling a vehicle function. It may e.g. be a physical bottom, switch, stick (e.g. for changing gear), hand-lever (e.g. for activating turning signal or adjusting throttle)”; the center levers comprise the second control module); and the control unit is configured for determining whether the input element determining the approaching hand is part of the first control module or part of the second control module (¶22;¶48).
With respect to Claim 11, claim 10 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches comprising a fourth input element (fig. 1, center lever) being part of the second control module (fig. 1, center levers: second control module); wherein the control unit is configured for executing a function assigned to the second input element if the approaching hand is in close distance to the fourth input element and to the second input element (¶12; ¶22, “selectively controlling the display for displaying the status of one of the first vehicle function and a second vehicle function based on a first vehicle function's priority relative a second vehicle function's priority”); and if a distance between the second input element and the approaching hand is smaller than a distance between the fourth input element and the approaching hand (¶22; ¶48).
With respect to Claim 12, claim 10 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches wherein the first and/or the second control module are a button control module (¶38, “embodied in a simple switch or button”), a joystick control module (¶38, “The first 104a and a second 104b operational interface are here illustrated by joysticks”), a knob control module (¶38, “preferably controlled by a knob, a lever or a keyboard”) or a lever control module (¶38, “preferably controlled by a knob, a lever or a keyboard”).
With respect to Claim 15, Kronberg teaches a method of determining an operator input on a human machine interface (fig. 4; ¶43) comprising a first input element (fig. 1, item 104b) configured for determining an approaching hand (¶48, “The proximity sensors may for example be capacitive sensors that sense the touch of the operator or it could be ultrasonic sensors or infrared sensors that could sense the hand from a distance … it would also be possible to keep the proximity sensors separated from the operational interface, for example it would enable one sensor covering a larger area, e.g. even to cover user proximity to any operational interface to the vehicle”); and a second input element (fig. 1, item 104f) configured for determining the approaching hand (¶48, “The proximity sensors may for example be capacitive sensors that sense the touch of the operator or it could be ultrasonic sensors or infrared sensors that could sense the hand from a distance … it would also be possible to keep the proximity sensors separated from the operational interface, for example it would enable one sensor covering a larger area, e.g. even to cover user proximity to any operational interface to the vehicle”); the method comprising: checking whether the approaching hand is at a close distance to the first input element (fig. 4, item S1; ¶43; ¶46-47;); and checking whether the approaching hand is at a close distance to the second input element (fig. 4; ¶43; ¶48; ¶49, “The control unit then again goes to step S5 controlling the HUD to display a new vehicle function status”).
Although Kronberg teaches ultrasonic or infrared sensors could sense the hand from a distance (¶48), Kronberg does not explicitly mention checking whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance.
Miedl teaches a method (fig. 2; claim 18) for operating a human interface machine for controlling a car, the human interface machine comprising: an input element (figs. 1 and 3, item 20) being distant from a reference point (reference point is a point between the front passenger seats); a proximity sensor (fig. 3, item 12; ¶20, “A proximity sensor 12 in the form of an optical camera, which is connected for information transfer to the apparatus 20, is arranged in a roof operating module”) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first input element; and a control unit (fig. 1, item 6; ¶18) configured for checking for the input element whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance (¶20, “makes it possible to ascertain a distance of the user 11 from the apparatus 20 being undershot (“approach” or “proximity”) and in this way enables the apparatus 20 to prepare a touch-based operation on the part of the user 11”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify themethod of Kronberg, to check whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance resulting in checking whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or at a close distance to the first input element; and checking whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or at a close distance to the second input element, as taught by Miedl, so as to prevent delays (¶18) and prepare for a touch-based operation (¶20).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronberg and Miedl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parkinson et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011/0141041 A1) hereinafter referred to as Parkinson as cited on the IDS dated September 9, 2025.
With respect to Claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg and Miedl combined do not explicitly mention wherein the control unit is configured for determining a signal indicative of a distance between an input element and the approaching hand.
Parkinson teaches a human machine interface, comprising: a first input element (fig. 1, item 14); and a proximity sensor (fig. 1, item 26) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first input element (¶31); and a control unit (fig. 1, item 30; ¶31) configured for checking for the first input element whether the approaching hand is in a distance; wherein the control unit is configured for determining a signal indicative of a distance between an input element and the approaching hand (¶31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined human machine interface of Kronberg and Miedl, wherein the control unit is configured for determining a signal indicative of a distance between an input element and the approaching hand, as taught by Parkinson so as to determine the distance between a user’s hand and the first input element (¶31).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronberg and Miedl as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vonroth et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0026510 A1) hereinafter referred to as Vonroth as cited on the IDS dated September 9, 2025.
With respect to Claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated, Although Kronberg teaches the human machine interface principle is applied to a cockpit of a car and a truck (figs. 5a and 5b; ¶56) and a construction vehicle (fig. 1) where the human machine interfaces and corresponding vehicle functions may be different to the agricultural machine but the general principle of the invention remains the same, however Kronberg and Miedl combined do not teach wherein the first approaching zone is ring-segment shaped and concentric to the reference point; the second approaching zone is ring-segment shaped and concentric to the reference point and of a greater reach than the first approaching zone.
Vonroth teaches a human machine interface (figs. 1 and 6, item 1; ¶37) for controlling an agricultural machine (fig. 1, item 50; ¶79), comprising a first input element (fig. 1, concentric row of keys below item 6 and above item 100 in a concentric form) being distant from a reference point (fig. 1, reference point is location of item 100); a second input element (fig. 1, item 6 – row of keys in a concentric form) being more distant from the reference point than the first input element; a proximity sensor (¶80) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first and/or second input element; and a control unit (fig. 1, item 100; ¶43-44) configured for checking for each input element whether the first input element or the second input element is pressed (¶44); wherein the first input element is located in a first approaching zone (fig. 1, first approaching zone is in front of and above item 100); the second input element is located in a second approaching zone (fig. 1, second approaching zone is in front of and above the second input element); wherein the first approaching zone is ring-segment shaped and concentric to the reference point (fig. 1); the second approaching zone is ring-segment shaped and concentric to the reference point and of a greater reach than the first approaching zone (fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined human machine interface of Kronberg and Miedl, by replacing item 104b and 104f respectively with concentric row of keys below item 6 and item 6 of Vonroth as shown in figure 1 and incorporating the control unit and proximity sensor of Kronberg and Miedl, resulting in wherein the first approaching zone is ring-segment shaped and concentric to the reference point; the second approaching zone is ring-segment shaped and concentric to the reference point and of a greater reach than the first approaching zone, so as to provide an alternative layout of the human machine interface.
With respect to Claim 9, claim 7 is incorporated, Kronberg teaches comprising a third input element (fig. 1, center level of all the levers) being located in the second approaching zone (fig. 1, second approaching zone is vicinity of the levers); executing a function assigned to the second input element if the approaching hand is in close distance to the third input element and to the second input element (¶22); and if a distance between the second input element and the approaching hand is smaller than a distance between the third input element and the approaching hand (¶48).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronberg and Miedl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Avila et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0179744 A1).
With respect to Claim 13, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg and Miedl do not mention comprising a sensor configured to detect whether an operator is seated in the agricultural machine; wherein the control unit is configured for activating a proximity function for determining an approaching hand by the first input element and the second input element if an operator is seated; and deactivating the proximity function if the operator is not seated.
Avila teaches a sensor (fig. 2, items 14 and 20; ¶18, “the proximity sensors 20 can include one or more reed switches to determine whether a buckle of the car seat 12 has been unfastened”) configured to detect whether a user is seated in a vehicle; wherein a control unit (fig. 2, item 16 comprises a process; ¶22) is configured for activating a proximity function if a user is seated (¶24, “the proximity sensors 20 are activated when the child is buckled into the car seat 12”); and deactivating the proximity function if the user is not seated (¶24, “the proximity sensors are deactivated, such as by unbuckling the seat buckles”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined human machine interface of Kronberg and Miedl, such that the vehicle and user of Avila corresponds to the agricultural machine and operator of Kronberg and Miedl, wherein the control unit is configured for activating a proximity function, as taught by Avila resulting in comprising a sensor configured to detect whether an operator is seated in the agricultural machine; wherein the control unit is configured for activating a proximity function for determining an approaching hand by the first input element and the second input element if an operator is seated; and deactivating the proximity function if the operator is not seated, so as to detect operator presence and conserve resources.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronberg and Miedl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salter et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0321065 A1) hereinafter referred to as Salter.
With respect to Claim 14, claim 1 is incorporated, Kronberg and Miedl combined do not mention comprising a sensor configured to detect whether an arm is resting on an arm support of the human machine interface; wherein the control unit is configured for activating a proximity function for determining an approaching hand by the first input element and the second input element if an arm on the arm support is detected; and deactivating the proximity function if an arm on the arm support is not detected.
Salter teaches a human machine interface (fig. 1, human machine interface: components within the vehicle that the user controls; ¶21) for controlling a vehicle (fig. 1, item 10; ¶21), comprising a first input element (fig. 1, item 30; ¶21); a proximity sensor (fig. 1, item 20); and a control unit (fig. 7, item 40; 32); further comprising a sensor configured to detect whether an arm is resting on an arm support (fig. 1, item 14: armrest = arm support; ¶5, “The proximity switch assembly also includes a resting pad having a second sensor for sensing an object on the resting pad. The proximity switch assembly further includes control circuitry detecting a first object with the first proximity sensor and a second object on the resting pad and determining activation of the first proximity switch based on detection of the first and second objects”; ¶21, “The door 12 includes an armrest 14 with a proximity switch assembly 20 provided thereon to allow a passenger (e.g., driver) to control devices or functions, such as opening and closing of window 16 and door locks 18. The switch assembly 20 located in the center console 18 may likewise control devices or function, such as the window 16 and door locks 14 and may control various other designated vehicle functions”) of the human machine interface; wherein the control unit is configured for activating a proximity function for determining an approaching hand by the first input element and the second input element if an arm on the arm support is detected; and deactivating the proximity function if an arm on the arm support is not detected (¶25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined human machine interface of Kronberg and Miedl, further comprising a sensor configured to detect whether an arm is resting on an arm support of the human machine interface; wherein the control unit is configured for activating a proximity function for determining an approaching hand by the first input element and the second input element if an arm on the arm support is detected; and deactivating the proximity function if an arm on the arm support is not detected, as taught by Salter, so as to provide enhanced determination of switch activation (¶1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNA V Bocar whose telephone number is (571)272-0955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5pm 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, Amr A Awad can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/DONNA V Bocar/ Examiner, Art Unit 2621