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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Weisser et al (DE Patent Publication DE 19936356 A1) teaches the claims as amended as listed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites in part “the manipulation member” at lines 1 – 2. However, claims 36 depends from claim 32, which introduces a first manipulation member and a second manipulation member. Thus, it is unclear which manipulation member is being referred to in claim 36.
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 16 and 28-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisser et al (DE Patent Publication DE 19936356 A1).
With regards to Claim 16: Weisser teaches a display device included in a work vehicle, the display device comprising: a display that has a display screen (11a-11f, 12, 13, 60) configured to display information about an autonomous travel of the work vehicle; and a manipulator (12 and/or 13 and 54) connected to the display, the manipulator having manipulation members configured to enable operation associated with the autonomous travel, wherein the manipulation members include: a first manipulation member (12 and/or 13) configured to enable the autonomous travel to be switched on and off; and a second manipulation member (54) including a seesaw switch and configured to enable operation different from operation of the first manipulation member, wherein the first manipulation member is positioned closer to a steering manipulator of the work vehicle than the second manipulation member.
Weisser does not teach that the manipulator is located below the display.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the manipulator is located below the display to allow ergonomic ease for the occupant to operate the controls. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 28: Weisser teaches a display device included in a work vehicle, the display device comprising: a display (11a-11f, 12, 13, 60) that has a display screen (60) configured to display information about an autonomous travel of the work vehicle; and a manipulator (20) connected to the display and having a manipulation member configured to enable operation associated with the autonomous travel.
Weisser does not teach that the manipulator is located below the display.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the manipulator is located below the display to allow ergonomic ease for the occupant to operate the controls. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 29: Weisser teaches the display device according to claim 28, but does not teach the manipulator (20) has a shape that becomes narrower toward a lower side.
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the manipulator of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to allow ergonomic ease for the occupant to operate the controls. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
With regards to Claim 30: Weisser teaches the display device according to claim 29, but does not teach a surface (around 20 in Fig 1) on which the manipulation member (20) of the manipulator is mounted is inclined with respect to the display screen (60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a surface on which the manipulation member of the manipulator is mounted is inclined with respect to the display screen to allow ergonomic ease for the occupant to operate the controls. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 31: Weisser teaches the display device according to claim 30, wherein the display device includes a monitor operation unit (61a-61d); and the display screen (60) shows operations that can be performed using the monitor operation unit.
With regards to Claim 32: Weisser teaches a display device included in a work vehicle, the display device comprising: a display having a display screen (60) configured to display information related to an autonomous travel of the work vehicle; and a manipulator connected to the display and having manipulation members configured to enable operations associated with the autonomous travel, wherein the manipulation members include: a first manipulation member (12 and/or 13) configured to enable switching between ON and OFF of the autonomous travel; and a second manipulation member (20) configured to enable an operation different from the operation of the first manipulation member, the second manipulation member being one or more of: a route correction manipulation member configured to enable correction of a route for the autonomous travel.
With regards to Claim 33: Weisser teaches a work vehicle comprising the display device according to claim 16.
With regards to Claim 34: Weisser teaches a work vehicle comprising the display device according to claim 32.
With regards to Claim 35: Weisser teaches the display device according to claim 32, but does not teach the manipulator (20) has a shape that becomes narrower toward a lower side.
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the manipulator of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient to allow ergonomic ease for the occupant to operate the controls. Furthermore, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
With regards to Claim 36: Weisser teaches the display device according to claim 32, but does not teach a surface (around 20 in Fig 1) on which the manipulation member (20) of the manipulator is mounted is inclined with respect to the display screen (60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a surface on which the manipulation member of the manipulator is mounted is inclined with respect to the display screen to allow ergonomic ease for the occupant to operate the controls. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 37: Weisser teaches the display device according to claim 32, wherein the display device includes a monitor operation unit (61a-61d); and the display screen (60) shows operations that can be performed using the monitor operation unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights