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, 7, 9, and 11-15 have been amended. Claims 1-15 are currently under review.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks, the 112(f) interpretation. The Applicant is reminded that this is an interpretation and not a rejection. The generic place holder is “unit” and the functional language is “configured for”, the limitations “checking for each input element whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance” can be accomplished by software, and the specification recites structure in paragraph 65, therefore the 112(f) interpretation remains.
The Applicant argues on page 11 of the remarks the motivation to combine Kronberg and Miedl, that Miedl is directed to a power management system for transitioning a digitizer between sleep mode and operating mode and that Kronberg is directed to a vehicle arrangement that displays function status on a HUD, not to selecting between multiple input elements based on distance determination.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Krongberg teaches that in figure 3C and paragraph 48, “While in the example illustrated in FIG. 3c it may be advantageous to incorporate the sensors in the operational interface, 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”, while Miedl teaches a camera (fig.3, item 12) within a vehicle to determine a user in proximity to the human machine interface. The vehicle is analogous to an agricultural machine, both requiring user control and both may have input elements that are not actively being engaged by the user.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographic errors. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 11: “first input element or the second input element falls below a predefined distance threshold, and wherein the far distance is”
Claim 15, line 11: “and the first input element or the second input element falls below a predefined distance threshold, and wherein the far distance is”
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, in view of Jeon et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0138682 A1) hereinafter referred to as Jeon.
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).
Kronberg and Miedl combined do not explicitly teach wherein the close distance is determined when a distance between the approaching hand and the input element falls below a predefined distance threshold, and wherein the far distance is determined when the distance is greater than the predefined distance threshold but within a sensing range of the proximity sensor.
Jeon teaches a human machine interface (fig. 1, item 1; ¶35) for controlling a vehicle (¶34), comprising: a first input element (fig. 1, item 11; ¶36); a proximity sensor (fig. 1, item 50) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first input element (¶54, “the user detection sensor 50 may detect, on the basis of the user's action for manipulating the button 11, whether a user's hand or the like that is in the proximity of the button 11 is located in a first range or in a second range based on the button 11”); and a control unit (fig. 2, item 60; ¶45; ¶55) configured for checking for the first input element whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance, wherein the close distance is determined when a distance between the approaching hand and the input element falls below a predefined distance threshold (¶54, “a region of the first range may be a range in which the user's hand or the like that is in the proximity of the button 11 is at a relatively close distance based on the button 11”, first range = predetermined distance threshold), and wherein the far distance is determined when the distance is greater than the predefined distance threshold but within a sensing range of the proximity sensor (¶54, “a region of the second range may be a range in which the user's hand or the like that is in the proximity of the button 11 is at a relatively long distance based on the button 11”, second range).
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 close distance is determined when a distance between the approaching hand and the input element falls below a predefined distance threshold, and wherein the far distance is determined when the distance is greater than the predefined distance threshold but within a sensing range of the proximity sensor, as taught by Jeon so as to switch the buttons between an active state and an inactive state and improved design (¶10; ¶19).
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 control module 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).
Kronberg and Miedl combined do not explicitly teach wherein the close distance is determined when a distance between the approaching hand and the input element falls below a predefined distance threshold, and wherein the far distance is determined when the distance is greater than the predefined distance threshold but within a sensing range of the proximity sensor.
Jeon teaches a human machine interface (fig. 1, item 1; ¶35) for controlling a vehicle (¶34), comprising: a first input element (fig. 1, item 11; ¶36); a proximity sensor (fig. 1, item 50) for determining a distance between an approaching hand and the first input element (¶54, “the user detection sensor 50 may detect, on the basis of the user's action for manipulating the button 11, whether a user's hand or the like that is in the proximity of the button 11 is located in a first range or in a second range based on the button 11”); and a control unit (fig. 2, item 60; ¶45; ¶55) configured for checking for the first input element whether the approaching hand is in a far distance or a close distance, wherein the close distance is determined when a distance between the approaching hand and the input element falls below a predefined distance threshold (¶54, “a region of the first range may be a range in which the user's hand or the like that is in the proximity of the button 11 is at a relatively close distance based on the button 11”, first range = predetermined distance threshold), and wherein the far distance is determined when the distance is greater than the predefined distance threshold but within a sensing range of the proximity sensor (¶54, “a region of the second range may be a range in which the user's hand or the like that is in the proximity of the button 11 is at a relatively long distance based on the button 11”, second range).
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 method of Kronberg and Miedl, wherein the close distance is determined when a distance between the approaching hand and the input element falls below a predefined distance threshold, and wherein the far distance is determined when the distance is greater than the predefined distance threshold but within a sensing range of the proximity sensor, as taught by Jeon so as to switch the buttons between an active state and an inactive state and improved design (¶10; ¶19).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronberg, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon, 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon, 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon, 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon 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, Miedl, and Jeon, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ozias et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0110019 A1) hereinafter referred to as Ozias teaches fig. 4 and paragraph 41 that “a proximity sensing element 60 may be configured to differentiate between (a) a selector 72 approaching a virtual button displayed adjacent frame 50 or bezel 52 and (b) a selector 70 approaching a virtual button 82 on frame 50 or bezel 52, e.g., by detecting the location and/or angle of the approaching selector, or using any other suitable techniques”..
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights