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 09 December 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amended claims are not allowable at least because they introduce new matter not originally disclosed in the specification.
The new limitation is also disclosed by Inoue (“FIG. 7 is a boarding / alighting safety system in which the front / rear horizontal holding operation of the driving section 4 is stopped in conjunction with the raising / lowering operation of the armrest position detection switch 72 to stop the swing of the driving section 4 during the getting on / off of the operator.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1 and 3-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification fails to disclose the following limitations of the newly amended claims: “prohibit the autonomous travel such that the travel of the field work machine is stopped altogether in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position”.
The original specification discloses only stopping autonomous travel of the field work machine in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position (fig 7, P98-99), and shifting to a manual travel mode. The original specification fails to disclose stopping travel altogether of the field work machine in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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).
Regarding claim 1, 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, or prohibiting the autonomous travel 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, and prohibiting the autonomous travel in response to detection of the armrest being pivoted from the use position to the non-use position (P18: “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
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
December 27, 2025