DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/920,363 filed on April 16, 2026 in which claims 1-10 were amended.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
It is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, if the specification is silent to the meaning of claim terminology, “words of the claim must be given their plain meaning.” See MPEP § 2111.01.
Here, the present claims refer to a “work site.” The specification does not appear to address the meaning of this term. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning must be used. As is present understood, a “work site” is the area where work occurs. (Worksite Definition, yourdictionary.com, December 2, 2022, Page 1). Thus, within the scope of the claims, the work site shall be interpreted to be the area immediately surrounding the vehicle where the vehicle is currently or could immediately perform work.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa, US Publication 2026/0009910 (hereinafter Yuasa) in view of Tepper et al., US Publication 2019/0077331 (hereinafter Tepper), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 16, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Yuasa discloses a work vehicle including a device that receives positional information in a work site (Yuasa Abstract) comprising “a correction information terminal comprising a housing, a display, and an antenna” (Yuasa Fig. 4) which shows a display screen inside a display (i.e., a housing) and an antenna. Additionally, Yuasa discloses “the antenna configured to receive correction information for correcting the positional information from a fixed base station located outside the work site” (Yuasa ¶¶ 42, 44, 63) where the antenna 22 receives positional information (Yuasa ¶ 44), which may be from the base station (Yuasa ¶ 42) and the base stations may be installed at (i.e., inside) or around (i.e., outside) the agricultural field. (Yuasa ¶ 63). Further, Yuasa discloses “the correction information based on a difference between a predetermined reference position of the fixed base station and a subsequent positional information of the fixed base station” (Yuasa ¶ 44) by using RTK, which a person of ordinary skill in the art understands to operate by using the difference between a known location of the base station and a location of the base station calculated from GNSS satellite data. (What is Real Time Kinematics?, Everythingrf.com, July 27, 2020, Page 2). Moreover, Yuasa discloses “a steering section for steering the vehicle. (Yuasa ¶ 39). Finally, Yuasa discloses “wherein the display is configured to display an operation state of the correction information terminal.” (Yuasa ¶ 143).
Although Yuasa discloses the existence of the correction information terminal, it does not explicitly state its location and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “the correction information terminal is disposed in the steering section.”
However, Tepper discloses a work vehicle where “the correction information terminal is disposed in the steering section” (Tepper ¶ 19 and Fig. 1) where the display is shown to be disposed in the steering section.
Yuasa and Tepper are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of work vehicles including displays.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yuasa and Tepper before him or her to modify the display of Yuasa to be located in the steering section, as disclosed by Tepper.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the driver’s ability to interaction with the monitor. (Tepper ¶ 12).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “a cabin that covers the steering section, wherein the correction information terminal is disposed inside the cabin” (Tepper ¶ 21 and Fig. 1) where the steering section, including the display, is shown to be disposed inside cab 2 (i.e., a cabin).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “wherein the correction information terminal is disposed such that display of the operation state is viewable from an outside of the cabin” (Tepper ¶ 19 and Fig. 1) where the information terminal is shown to be disposed in such a manner.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “wherein the cabin has an open/close door for getting in and getting out of the steering section” (Yuasa Fig. 3) where doors are shown in Fig. 3. Further, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “the correction information terminal is disposed such that the operation state is viewable from an outside of the cabin through the open/close door in a closed state” (Tepper ¶ 19 and Fig. 1) where the information terminal is shown to be disposed in such a manner.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “wherein a driver's seat is disposed in the steering section” (Yuasa Fig. 3, Tepper, Fig. 1) where each reference separately teaches that the seat in disposed in the steering section. Further, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “the correction information terminal is disposed below the driver's seat” (Tepper ¶ 35 and Fig. 2) where the display is part of an apparatus that is shown attached (i.e., disposed) below the driver’s seat. Additionally, this apparatus is also shown to be fully vertically adjustable and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that the display itself could be lowered to any point in the cabin that the arm can reach.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “wherein the correction information terminal is configured to display the operation state of the correction information terminal on the display by a light emitting mode of a light emitter” (Tepper ¶ 21) where the display may be an LCD or OLED display, which are known to those of ordinary skill in the art to work in this manner.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa in view of Tepper, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Miura et al., US Patent 8,730,055 (hereinafter Miura).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses “the correction information terminal is disposed in a driver's seat support portion that supports the driver's seat” (Tepper ¶ 35, Fig. 2) where the display is part of an apparatus that is shown attached (i.e., disposed) below the driver’s seat as part of the seat support potion.
The combination of Yuasa and Tepper does not appear to explicitly disclose “ reset operation portion for resetting a state of the correction information terminal” or “the reset operation portion is disposed in the driver's seat support portion.”
However, Miura discloses a work vehicle including “a reset operation portion for resetting a state of the correction information terminal” (Miura col. 13, l. 59-col. 14, l. 10) where button SW5 switches the LCD display, which is resetting the state of the display within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Additionally, Miura discloses “the reset operation portion is disposed in the driver's seat support portion” (Miura Fig. 2) where Miura Fig. 2 shows that display 43, which includes the reset button as discussed above, is connected to right steering stand 22, which is shown to be part of the driver’s seat support portion.
Yuasa, Tepper, and Miura are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of work machines.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yuasa, Tepper, and Miura before him or her to modify the display of Yuasa and Tepper to include the ability to change the display of Miura.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Yuasa and Tepper teaches the “base device” of a work machine including a display for correcting positional information. Further, Miura teaches the “known technique” for including on a display of a work machine a button to change the display state that is applicable to the base device of Yuasa and Tepper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would have allowed the display to show other useful information when it was not needed for correcting the vehicle’s position.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yuasa, Tepper, and Miura discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa, Tepper, and Miura discloses “ wherein the reset operation portion is disposed below the correction information terminal” (Miura Fig. 8) where button SW5 is shown below the terminal.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa in view of Tepper, as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Feng, US Publication 2015/0015466 (hereinafter Feng).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. Although the combination of Yuasa and Tepper discloses the presence of LCD and OLED displays, it does not explicitly disclose the number of colors that are used on these displays and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the light emitter is configured to display the operation state of the correction information terminal on the display by light emission in a plurality of light emission colors.”
However, Feng discloses that color OLED displays are well-known in the art “wherein the light emitter is configured to display the operation state of the correction information terminal on the display by light emission in a plurality of light emission colors” (Feng ¶ 18) where each pixel includes a first, second, and third color sub-pixel.
Yuasa, Tepper, and Feng are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of display technology.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Yuasa, Tepper, and Feng before him or her to modify the OLED display of Yuasa and Tepper to include the use of multiple colors on an OLED display of Yuasa.
The motivation for doing so would have been that the display of Feng provides improved “accuracy and yield of evaporation and image resolution.” (Feng Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yuasa, Tepper, and Feng discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Yuasa, Tepper, and Feng discloses “wherein the display includes a plurality of light emitters arranged in a horizontal line at a predetermined interval” (Feng. ¶ 18 and Fig. 1(a)) where the organic light emitting diodes are spaced by a second interval in the horizontal direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request filed April 16, 2026, to hold the objection to the title in abeyance (Remarks 4) have been noted.
Applicant’s arguments filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 4-5) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 5-7) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Ha et al., US Publication 2021/0107552, System and method for including a display terminal in a steering unit.
Takase et al., US Publication 2022/0105874, System and method for correcting the position of a work vehicle.
Desai et al., US Publication 2023/0195136, System and method for correcting the position of a work vehicle.
Tokieda, US Publication 2025/0251725, System and method for correcting the position of a work vehicle.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights