DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 12-19, are pending in the current application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 18, line 4, the term “witches” should be changed to “switches.”
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 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawayanagi (U.S. Pat. No. 9,616,812 B2) in view of Joo (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0218371 A1).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Sawayanagi discloses a working vehicle (Abstract), the vehicle comprising: a switch device (e.g., 20, 30, and 40; FIGS. 2, 3, and 4), but does not disclose the claimed modes.
However, Joo discloses (i) that the switch device is switchable between a first operation mode (¶ [0069]) and a second operation mode (¶ [0070]), and a plurality of multiple switches (851; ¶¶ [0026], [0027], [0084], FIG. 12), wherein the plurality of switches (851) is comprised in the switch device (FIGS. 11 and 12) and wherein each switch of the plurality of switches (851) is associated with and controls a corresponding first light emitting region (e.g., 831; 851 controls actuation of a respective one of a light emitting region under 823, as shown in FIG. 12), and a corresponding second light emitting region (e.g., 832; 851 controls actuation of a respective one of a light emitting region under 832, as shown in FIG. 14A) distinct from the first light emitting region (831; FIG. 14A), and the corresponding first light emitting region (831) is turned on in the first operation mode of the switch device (FIG. 14A), and the corresponding second light emitting region (832) is turned on in the second operation mode of the switch device (FIG. 14B), as recited in Claim 1, (ii) that upon switching from the second operation mode to the first operation mode, the second light emitting region (832) is turned off (FIG. 14A) and the first light emitting region (831) is turned on (FIG. 14B), as recited in Claim 12, (iii) that the first light emitting region (831) is disposed adjacent to the second light emitting region (832 (e.g., FIG. 14B), as recited in Claim 14, (iv) a monitor (801; FIG. 12), wherein, in the second operation mode, the second light emitting region (832) is provided with numerals capable of being input to the monitor (inherent in the device of FIG. 11), as recited in Claim 15,
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joo with those of Sawayanagi to provide multiple input mechanisms providing optical feedback and ease of actuation.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Joo and Sawayanagi discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize regions having varying widths to provide increased optical feedback for a desired region (e.g., wider numbers, wider icons, wider letters, etc.). It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Joo and Sawayanagi discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed state. However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn on a second light emitting region to provide optical feedback to a device operator upon start-up (e.g., a key-on state). It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design a second light emitting region to provide optical feedback to a device operator upon start-up, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 17, Sawayanagi discloses a working vehicle (Abstract, FIG. 1) comprising: a switch device (e.g., 20, 30, and 40; FIGS. 2, 3, and 4), but does not disclose the claimed modes. However, Joo discloses a switch device switchable between a first operation mode and a second operation mode under a predetermined condition (¶¶ [0069]-[0070]), and, and a plurality of switches (851), wherein: the plurality of switches (851) is comprised in the switching device (FIG. 11), each switch of the plurality of switches (851) is associated with a first light emitting region (831) and a second light emitting region (832) distinct from the first light emitting region (831; FIGS. 14A and 14B), and the first light emitting region (831) is turned on in the first operation mode (FIG. 14A), and the second light emitting region (832) is turned on in the second operation mode (FIG. 14B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joo with those of Sawayanagi to provide multiple input mechanisms providing optical feedback and ease of actuation.
The combination of Joo and Sawayanagi discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed key-on state, and that the second operation mode starts when the working vehicle enters the key-on state.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn on a second light emitting region to provide optical feedback to a device operator upon start-up (e.g., a key-on state). It has been concluded that absent any convincing showing of the criticality of the design, this particular design is nothing more than the inventor choice without departing from the scope of the invention. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
The combination of Joo and Sawayanagi discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention, and Joo further discloses that each switch in the plurality of switches (851) is associated with a corresponding function (FIGS. 14A, 14B), wherein the operation state of the corresponding function is indicated by turning on the first light emitting region (FIG. 14A), as recited in Claim 18, and (ii) that the corresponding operation state indicates whether the corresponding function is: in operation (e.g., an illumination of numeral “1” in FIG. 14A), as recited in Claim 19. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Joo with those of Sawayanagi to provide multiple input mechanisms providing optical feedback and ease of actuation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R. JIMENEZ whose telephone number is 313-446-6518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 1030am - 9pm.
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, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. 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.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833