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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the new limitations of “a plurality of indications, wherein each indication of the plurality of indications notifies of a different state of a plurality of states… and wherein each indication of the plurality of indications includes a different color…”
Examiner agrees, however this is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112, Applicant refers to figures 6 and 13 and paragraphs [0010], [0116], [0153] and [0155] and asserts that these describe the retraction of the lamp within the roof. Examiner disagrees.
Regarding Figures 6 and 13, these figures clearly show the lamp as being external to the roof and alongside it in the retracted position. Figure 6 is a top-down view which clearly shows lamp 150 as next to the roof, and Figure 13 is a side-on view of the same and shows, for example, window 43. It therefore not a cutaway view, but an external view, showing that the lamp is mounted outside, alongside the roof, and not within it. The lamp is, as the Applicant notes, below the upper face of the roof panel, in the sense that it is lower than the top of the roof when retracted. However, the lamp is clearly not within the roof in these figures, nor does the description of these figures or elsewhere suggest that the lamp can be retracted within the roof.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(a) is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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) contains 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 9 recites that “the state indication device is positioned within the roof when in the retracted posture.” This limitation is not taught in the specification. Applicant cites paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0110], [0129], [0133], and [0136]-[0141] as well as Figs 6 and 13. Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] refer to a discharge auger for discharging grain from the harvester and are unrelated to the claimed invention. The remaining paragraphs describe the components of the support hardware for the state indication device. Figs 6 and 13 show the state indication device being mounted alongside the cabin, next to the roof. None of the cited paragraphs or the figures show the state indication device retracting within the roof, nor is support for this limitation found elsewhere within the specification.
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Booth et al. (US 20230202574 A1) in view of Huenink et al. (US 20220373152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Booth teaches: A work vehicle including a cabin covering a driving part, the work vehicle comprising: (See Booth Fig. 1 and [0016] for tractor with covered cabin)
a state indication device configured to provide a plurality of indications, wherein each indication of the plurality of indications notifies of a different state of a plurality of states of a machine body of the work vehicle, and… (See Booth [0043] for flashing lights, often used as an indication that a vehicle is in motion or operation)
wherein the state indication device is provided in a state of being supported by a support part provided inside a roof of the cabin. (See Booth Figs 3-7 and [0029], [0036] for mount 108 to connect the grab bar to the internal roof structure to distribute the load. See [0026] for roof structure that supports other components.)
Booth does not explicitly teach: … and wherein each indication of the plurality of indications includes a different color.
However, Huenink teaches a system of multicolored LED lamps operated based on vehicle condition (See abstract) wherein different colors are used to indicate different states of a vehicle (See Huenink [0028], [0032]-[0034] for examples of different states indicated by different lighting colors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the lighting system of Booth to include the multicolored LED lamps of Huenink in order to improve the flexibility of the lighting system and its ability to communicate more information with fewer lamps.
Regarding claim 2, modified Booth teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the state indication device is arranged in a central part of the machine body in a left-right direction. (See Booth [0031] for lights connected to grab rails and roof structures, and may be positioned in another suitable location relative to the roof structure. See Fig. 2 and [0020] for forward and rearward grab rails 48 and 44. Lights mounted to the forward or rearward grab rails could therefore be mounted along the left-right centerline of the vehicle.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Booth teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising:
an antenna unit provided on an upper part of one side face part among right and left side face parts of the cabin; and
an antenna support member provided on the one side face part and configured to support the antenna unit,
wherein the support part includes the antenna support member. (See Booth Fig. 3 and [0032] for antenna 80 supported by the same grab rail and support components which support the lights.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Booth teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 5, wherein the support part includes a member connecting the state indication device and the antenna unit together. (See Booth Fig. 3 and [0032] for antenna 80 supported by the same grab rail and support components which support the lights.)
Claims 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth et al. (US 20230202574 A1) in view of Huenink et al. (US 20220373152 A1) and Thompson (US 3,487,360 A).
Regarding claim 3, Booth in view of Huenink teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 1,
Booth does not explicitly teach: wherein the state indication device is provided in a manner that a posture of the state indication device is changeable.
However, Thompson teaches a collapsable indicator light to indicate the movement of the vehicle (See Thompson Figs 1-2 and cols 1-2 for light mounted to the end of pole 11 which pivots around pin 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Booth to incorporate a raisable/collapsable light as taught in Thompson as one of the attachments for the grab rail in order to improve visibility and utility of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, modified Booth teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the support part is provided in a manner that the posture of the state indication device is changeable from a use posture which is a posture of the state indication device in a use state to a retracted posture which is a posture of the state indication device in a retracted state. (See Thompson Figs 1-2 and cols 1-2 for light mounted to the end of pole 11 which pivots around pin 12 and is pivoted from a horizontal position adjacent to the vehicle roof to an upstanding position).
Regarding claim 8, Booth in view of Huenink teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 1,
Booth does not explicitly teach: wherein the state indication device is configured to pivot between a use posture and a retracted posture.
However, Thompson teaches a collapsable indicator light to indicate the movement of the vehicle. (See Thompson Figs 1-2 and cols 1-2 for light mounted to the end of pole 11 which pivots around pin 12 and is pivoted from a horizontal position adjacent to the vehicle roof to an upstanding position)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Booth to incorporate a raisable/collapsable light as taught in Thompson as one of the attachments for the grab rail in order to improve visibility and utility of the vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth et al. (US 20230202574 A1) in view of Huenink et al. (US 20220373152 A1), Thompson (US 3,487,360 A) and Ellis et al. (US 4,925,361 A).
Regarding claim 7, Booth in view of Huenink teaches: The work vehicle according to claim 1,
Booth does not explicitly teach: wherein the state indication device is configured to transition between a use posture and a retracted posture, the work vehicle comprising:
a detection device configured to determine when the state indication device is in the retracted posture.
Thompson teaches a collapsable indicator light to indicate the movement of the vehicle. (See Thompson Figs 1-2 and cols 1-2 for light mounted to the end of pole 11 which pivots around pin 12 and is pivoted from a horizontal position adjacent to the vehicle roof to an upstanding position)
Ellis teaches the use of a contact sensor to detect the position of a swinging arm (See Ellis Figs 1 and 4 and col 8, ln 53-60 for swinging arm 38 and sensor 126.)
Examiner notes that the use of a touch sensor to detect when a moving arm has reached the end of its travel is well known in the mechanical arts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the vehicle of Booth to incorporate a raisable/collapsable light as taught in Thompson as one of the attachments for the grab rail in order to improve visibility and utility of the vehicle. It would have further been obvious to incorporate a touch sensor, as taught in Ellis, to provide an indication when the arm is retracted, to prevent inadvertently operating with the arm in the wrong position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661