Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0054729 (“Whitehead” or “W”).
Regarding claim 9, W teaches a work vehicle (that of fig 13) comprising: a tractor with a cabin (as shown); a support frame at an upper position outside the cabin (the base of 753 is arranged along a left-right width direction (it has extension along that direction and has a left-right position) at an upper position outside the cabin, as shown); and a GNSS antenna (753) supported by the support frame (as shown) while positioned in the center of a left-right width direction of a body of the tractor (as shown).
However, W fails to teach that the support frame is arranged along a left-right width direction, as determined by the Patent Board (see page 4 of decision dated 6/12/2025).
Nevertheless, as stated by the Patent Board:
“Referring to Figure 4, Whitehead explains that ‘a mechanism for ensuring an accurate orientation of the sensor system 20 to the vehicle 10 may be provided for by an optional mounting base 14 accurately attached to the enclosure 28’ and ‘the mounting base 14 is configured to fit flatly against the top surfaces of the vehicle 10 to facilitate an unimpeded view to the GNSS satellites.’ ([paragraph] 62.) Moreover, Whitehead explains that sensor system 20 includes antenna 26. ([paragraph] 55.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying Whitehead’s tractor 10 from the Figure 13 embodiment, to include Whitehead’s optional mounting base 14 from Figure 4 would provide the benefit of accurately orienting antenna 753 to tractor 10 and to facilitate an unimpeded view to the GNSS satellites. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (‘[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.’). In addition, Whitehead’s Figure 4 and corresponding text illustrates that mounting base 14 is arranged along a left-right width direction at an upper position outside the cabin. ([paragraphs] 55, 62.) Accordingly, Whitehead teaches the limitation “a support frame arranged along a left-right width direction at an upper position outside the cabin,” as recited in independent claim 9.”
Regarding claim 10, W fails to teach a camera positioned below the GNSS antenna.
However, W teaches using an onboard camera for optical guide path observations (0013). In addition, W teaches locating the camera and other sensors throughout the vehicle (0013).
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide a camera positioned below the GNSS antenna.
The motivation would have been to provide for optical guide path observations to improve accuracy (0013). Locating the camera below antenna 753 would have been obvious to try in light of the teaching to locate the sensors throughout the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, W fails to teach that the camera is directly or indirectly supported by the support frame.
However, it was old and well-known to use support frames to support cameras.
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide that the camera is directly or indirectly supported by the support frame.
The motivation would have been to create an integrated GNSS and optical guide path system sharing the same mount.
Regarding claim 12, W fails to teach that a gap is provided between a bottom surface of an antenna unit containing the GNSS antenna and a top surface of a mounting bracket of the camera.
However, given the modified system discussed in regard to claim 11, it would have been obvious to further supply a gap between the GNSS antenna and a top surface of a mounting bracket of the camera.
It was old and well-known to provide gaps between distinct objects, such as the GNSS antenna and the camera, in order to allow space for assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that W’s figure 4 fails to teach that the support frame is arranged along a left-right width direction. However, the rejection provided by the Patent Board disagrees. The Patent Board stated that “Whitehead’s Figure 4 and corresponding text illustrates that mounting base 14 is arranged along a left-right width direction at an upper position outside the cabin.” Applicant also argues that figure 4 fails to teach a GNSS antenna positioned in the center of the left-right width direction of the body of the tractor. However, the rejection relies upon W’s figure 13 for positioning in the center of a left-right width direction of a body of the tractor. Applicant argues that W required two antennas to execute its invention. However, the claims do not recite that only one antenna is required. In addition, the claims employ the open transition “comprising,” which allows for devices and inventions having additional structures to fall within the scope of the claim. Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the device of W’s figure 4. However, the modification provided by the Patent Board is a modification of the device of figure 13, not the device of figure 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GRAHAM P SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
/GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights