DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendments/Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least Inoue, as explained in the rejection below.
2. Applicant argues that he is entitled to a new non-final rejection because the previous Office Action failed to address the subject matter of dependent claims 11-12.
This argument is not found persuasive. Although the previous Office Action accidentally deleted the paragraphs specifically addressing dependent claims 11-12, these paragraphs were originally included in the non-final rejection mailed on 02 July 2025. Applicant had the opportunity to address the rejections for dependent claims 11-12 in his response but chose not to do so. Further, the grounds of rejection in the previous Office Action included these dependent claims (“Claims 1, and 3-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0191408) in view of Inoue (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP H09-258826).”). The grounds of rejection for these claims have not been changed in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0191408) in view of Inoue (Japanese Patent Application Publication # JP H09-258826).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hayashida discloses a field work machine (tractor 10) configured to perform autonomous travel in a field (abstract, etc), the field work machine comprising:
a driver's seat (153) that is provided on a machine body, the driver's seat includes an armrest (159) (figs 2, 11, 13, etc); and
a control unit that is configured to:
perform control related to the autonomous travel (abstract, figs, etc), and
prohibit the autonomous travel in response to detection of a first action that is performed with respect to the armrest by a worker on the machine body (fig 11, P127, 140: setting and unsetting of automatic steering on control lever 157 on armrest 159; or fig 13, P143, 46, 38-39, 135, 139-140, 146: pressing of interruption button 133 disposed on armrest 159 to interrupt/prohibit automatic steering, etc).
Hayashida fails to disclose that the armrest is pivotable between a use position and a non-use position; set a condition in which the armrest is in the use position as a condition for starting the autonomous travel; or prohibiting the autonomous travel such that the (autonomous) travel of the field work machine is stopped in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position.
In the same field of endeavor, Inoue discloses that the armrest is pivotable between a use position and a non-use position (P18);
set a condition in which the armrest is in the use position as a condition for starting the autonomous travel (implicit from P18: automatically switches to the manual operation mode when armrest is in the non-use position, i.e. autonomous travel cannot be started unless the armrest remains in the use position); and
prohibiting the autonomous travel such that the (autonomous) travel of the field work machine is stopped in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position (P18: automatically switch to the manual operation mode when armrest is raised/pivoted to the non-use position, i.e. prohibiting the autonomous travel such that the (autonomous) travel of the field work machine is stopped in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position).
P18 reads: “70 shows a control mode changeover switch S and an armrest position detection switch 72 which is turned on / off in conjunction with the erection of an armrest 71 provided in the driving unit 4 on the input side of the control unit 41. The control mode switching board 73 is connected to the output side, and when the operator raises the armrest 71 for getting on and off, the safety is improved by automatically switching to the manual operation mode”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashida to do so, as taught by Inoue, in order to improve safety of the work machine and operator by disabling autonomous travel when the work machine is in a non-use configuration, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-14, Hayashida discloses prohibiting the autonomous travel in response to detection of at least one of several possible actions (P15-16, 20-21, 49, 96, 100, 103-104, 123-124, 146, claims 1 and 3, etc).
Hayashida also discloses a fertilizing device that is supported by the machine body (P126, etc).
Hayashida fails to disclose that the control unit is configured to prohibit the autonomous travel in response to detection of a second action that is performed with respect to the fertilizing device by the worker.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a setting or prohibit an action in response to an action that is performed with respect to the fertilizing device by the worker. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashida to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety of the work machine and operator by disabling autonomous travel when the work machine is in a non-use configuration, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15, Hayashida discloses prohibiting the autonomous travel in response to detection of at least one of several possible actions (P15-16, 20-21, 49, 96, 100, 103-104, 123-124, 146, claims 1 and 3, etc).
Hayashida fails to disclose a seating sensor that is configured to detect that the worker is sitting in the driver's seat, and wherein the control unit is further configured to prohibit the autonomous travel in response to detection that the worker has entered a non-seating state in which the worker is not sitting in the driver's seat from a seating state in which the worker is sitting in the driver's seat.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a setting or prohibit an action in response to a detection that the worker has entered a non-seating state based on a seating sensor. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashida to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety of the work machine and operator by disabling autonomous travel when the worker is in a non-use position, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 8-10, Hayashida discloses prohibiting the autonomous travel in response to detection of at least one of several possible actions (P15-16, 20-21, 49, 96, 100, 103-104, 123-124, 146, claims 1 and 3, etc).
Hayashida fails to disclose a spare seedling stand on which a spare seedling is placed, and wherein the control unit is further configured to prohibit the autonomous travel in response to detection of a third action that is performed with respect to the spare seedling stand by the worker.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a setting or prohibit an action in response to an action performed with respect to the spare seedling stand by the worker. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hayashida to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety of the work machine and operator by disabling autonomous travel when the work machine is in a non-use configuration, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16-18, Hayashida in view of Inoue discloses a switch, wherein a base portion of the switch is fixed to the driver's seat, a movable portion of the switch is coupled to the base portion and movable relative to the base portion, and the armrest is in the use position when the armrest contacts the movable portion and the movable portion contacts the base portion (implicit: P18, etc; and well known in the art. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of these facts).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights