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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 10/30/2024 and 2/17/2025 have been considered and are included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 2, “are lateral connecting the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars to each other” should be changed to --are connecting the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars to each other laterally--.
In claim 18, line 1, “wherein the a” should be changed to --wherein the--.
In claim 19, line 22, replace the period at the end of the line with -- ;and --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “holding device extending outwards in a transverse direction of the cab”. It is unclear wherein the holding device is extending from to be extending outwards. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation will be read as extending outward from a surface of the cab and in a transverse direction.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “automatically control the lighting structure for the second type of agricultural work vehicle according to the first type lighting algorithm” which is a misrepresentation of the specification where the control for the second type of agricultural work vehicle is according to the second type lighting algorithm. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as the second type lighting algorithm.
Claims 10-13 and 18-19 are rejected being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244, noted in IDS dated 2/17/2025) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108).
Regarding claim 1, Ries et al. discloses a cab (20) for an agricultural work vehicle (10), the cab comprising: a cab frame including a frame structure (Fig. 9 shows structure) which has a plurality of A-pillars (40) positioned in a front region of the cab and a plurality of B-pillars (40) positioned in a rear region of the cab, wherein the plurality of A-pillars are connected to each other, the plurality of B-pillars are connected to each other, and the plurality of A-pillars are connected to the plurality of B-pillars at respective ends by frame segments extending in a longitudinal direction and in a transverse direction of the cab (Fig. 9 shows the connection between all the pillars (40)), wherein the cab frame comprises a lighting structure (70) integrated into the frame structure; a cab roof (38), wherein the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars are positioned substantially vertically and configured to support the cab roof (Fig. 9); and a control unit (paragraphs [0027]-[0028] discuss the control of the lighting structure, such as with other lighting in the vehicle, which would be controlled by a control unit) configured to control the lighting structure for at least partial illumination of one or both of: one or more working areas; or one or more visible areas of the agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027] discusses the lights illuminating a work area as well as the work tools of the vehicle).
Ries et al. does not explicitly disclose that the cab frame is modular in design.
Suratad et al., like Ries et al., teaches a cab for an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches the cab frame being modular in design (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. to include a modular aspect to the cab frame as taught by Suratad et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to provide the cab onto multiple types of agricultural work vehicles.
Regarding claim 2, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 1, and teaches (references to Ries et al.) wherein the lighting structure comprises at least one adaptive light module (paragraph [0028] discloses the adjustable lights of any variety, which allows them to be adaptive).
Regarding claim 14, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 2, and teaches (references to Ries et al.) wherein the at least one adaptive light module comprise a plurality of adaptive light modules; and wherein the control unit is configured to automatically control the plurality of adaptive light modules independently of one another (paragraph [0028] discloses the adjustable lights of any variety, which allows them to be adaptive).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kudo (US 2020/0148099, noted in IDS dated 2/17/2025).
Regarding claim 3, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 2. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to automatically control one or both of light intensity or wavelength of emitted light of the at least one adaptive light module.
Kudo, like Ries et al., teaches a cab for an agriculture work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to automatically control one or both of light intensity or wavelength of emitted light of the at least one adaptive light module (paragraphs [0067]-[0070] teaches the automatic control over the wavelength of the emitted light)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. to include control of light intensity and/or wavelength of the emitted light as taught by Kudo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to control the color of the light provided to help with identifying situations for the user or people and vehicles around the user of the cab.
Regarding claim 8, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 2. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one adaptive light module of the lighting structure integrated in the plurality of B-pillars extend in a vertical direction at least substantially over a length of the B-pillars on surface sections of the plurality of B-pillars substantially opposite a direction of forward travel.
Kudo, like Ries et al., teaches a cab for an agriculture work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the at least one adaptive light module (18) of the lighting structure integrated in the plurality of B-pillars (163, 164) extend in a vertical direction at least substantially over a length of the B-pillars on surface sections of the plurality of B-pillars substantially opposite a direction of forward travel (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0067]-[0070] teaches the lighting structure integrated in the plurality of B-pillars).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. to include at least one adaptive light module integrated into the B-pillars as taught by Kudo, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for a tight fit for the light to avoid being caught by obstacles and where parts can be reduced.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) and Kudo (US 2020/0148099) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pontinha et al. (EP 3092882, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 4, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Kudo teaches the cab of claim 3. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Kudo does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to automatically adapt beam angle of the at least one adaptive light module.
Pontinha et al., like Ries et al., teaches a cab with an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to automatically adapt beam angle of the at least one adaptive light module (paragraphs [0022]-[0025] of the machine translation teach that the light beam angles are adapted based on the mode of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Kudo to include a control of the beam angle as taught by Pontinha et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper angle based on the use of the vehicle, i.e. road travel, or working (Pontinha et al.: paragraph [0024] of the machine translation).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takagi et al. (JP 2006137228, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 5, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 2. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one adaptive light module of the lighting structure is integrated in one or more of the plurality of A-pillars and extend in a vertical direction substantially over at least a part of length of the one or more the plurality of A-pillars on surface sections of the one or more of the plurality of A-pillars pointing in a direction of forward travel.
Takagi et al., like Ries et al., teaches a cab for an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the at least one adaptive light module of the lighting structure is integrated in one or more of the plurality of A-pillars and extend in a vertical direction substantially over at least a part of length of the one or more the plurality of A-pillars on surface sections of the one or more of the plurality of A-pillars pointing in a direction of forward travel (Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. to include at least one adaptive light module integrated in one or more of the plurality of A-pillars as taught by Takagi et al., with a reasonable amount of success, in order to allow for a tight fit for the light to avoid being caught by obstacles and where parts can be reduced (Takagi et al.: paragraph [0028] of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 2. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one adaptive light module of the lighting structure is integrated into the frame segments connecting the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars to each other and extending in the longitudinal direction of the cab, or into side surfaces of the cab roof extending in the longitudinal direction of the cab.
Takagi et al., like Ries et al., teaches a cab for an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the at least one adaptive light module of the lighting structure is integrated into the frame segments connecting the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars to each other and extending in the longitudinal direction of the cab, or into side surfaces of the cab roof extending in the longitudinal direction of the cab (Fig. 1, paragraph [0015] of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. to include at least one adaptive light module integrated into the frame segments as taught by Takagi et al., with a reasonable amount of success, in order to allow for a tight fit for the light to avoid being caught by obstacles to allow for the lights to be easily visually recognized (Takagi et al.: paragraph [0015] of the machine translation).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) and Takagi et al. (JP 2006137228, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Farley (WO 2019036674).
Regarding claim 6, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Takagi et al. teaches the cab of claim 1. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Takagi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one adaptive light module of the lighting structure is integrated into a front face of the cab roof and extends at least substantially over a width of the cab roof.
Farley, like Ries et al., teaches a cab with an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the at least one adaptive light module ((70), (72)) of the lighting structure is integrated into a front face of the cab roof and extends at least substantially over a width of the cab roof (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. modified by Suratad et al. and Takagi et al. to provide the light module across the front face of the cab roof as taught by Farley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the lighting in front of the vehicle facing the front of the vehicle where most of the work and road driving will require lighting.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bohl (DE 102019125024, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 9, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 2. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the cab further comprises a holding device extending outwards in a transverse direction of the cab; and wherein the holding device is configured as a mirror replacement system configured to replace a mirror of the agriculture work vehicle.
Bohl, like Ries et al., teaches a cab for an agriculture work vehicle, and further teaches the cab (3) comprises a holding device extending outwards in a transverse direction of the cab (Fig. 1); and wherein the holding device is configured as a mirror replacement system configured to replace a mirror of the agriculture work vehicle ((17), paragraphs [0004], [0024], a mirror replacement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. to include a mirror replacement as taught by Bohl, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve operator’s perception of the surroundings for detecting the environment of the machine.
Regarding claim 11, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Bohl teaches the cab of claim 9, and teaches (references to Bohl) wherein the mirror replacement system is positioned on the cab roof (Fig. 1).
Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Bohl does not explicitly teach the mirror replacement system is positioned on at least one of the frame segments that are lateral connecting the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars to each other. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the location of the mirror replacement system of Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Bohl to be positioned along at least one frame segments versus the cab roof in order to provide further protections of the mirror replacement system from weather or other related complications.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) and Bohl (DE 102019125024, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kudo (US 2020/0148099).
Regarding claim 10, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Bohl teaches the cab of claim 9. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Bohl does not explicitly teach wherein the mirror replacement system is positioned on the at least one of the plurality of A-pillars. Kudo
Kudo, like Ries, teaches a cab for an agriculture work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the mirror is positioned on the at least one of the plurality of A-pillars (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the location of the mirror replacement system to be located where the mirrors were positioned as taught by Kudo, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the location would be in a field view of the operator for use or dependent upon the desired location of the need of the driver. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farley (WO 2019036674).
Regarding claim 15, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 1. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to at least partly automatically determine whether the agricultural work vehicle is performing a first type of driving or a second type of driving; and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the first type of driving: automatically access a first type of driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the first type of driving; and automatically control the lighting structure according to the first type of driving lighting algorithm; and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the second type of driving: automatically access a second type of driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the second type of driving; and automatically control the lighting structure according to the second type of driving lighting algorithm.
Farley, like Ries et al., teaches a cab with an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to at least partly automatically determine whether the agricultural work vehicle is performing a first type of driving or a second type of driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode); and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the first type of driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode): automatically access a first type of driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the first type of driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings); and automatically control the lighting structure according to the first type of driving lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the second type of driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode): automatically access a second type of driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the second type of driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings); and automatically control the lighting structure according to the second type of driving lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. modified by Suratad et al. to include a first type of driving algorithm and a second type of driving algorithm as taught by Farley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper lighting based on where the lighting is required due to the type of driving such as for legal regulations (Farley: paragraph [0027], for desired lighting for each mode).
Regarding claim 16, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Farley teaches the cab of claim 15, and teaches (references to Farley) wherein the first type of driving comprises road driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road mode, light settings) or the second type of driving comprises field driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], field mode, light settings); and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the road driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings): automatically access a road driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the road driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings); and automatically control the lighting structure according to the road driving lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the field driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings): automatically access a field driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the field driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings); and automatically control the lighting structure according to the field driving lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode, light settings).
Regarding claim 17, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. teaches the cab of claim 1. However, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is further configured to at least partly automatically determine a type of the agricultural work vehicle comprising at least a first type of agricultural work vehicle and a second type of agricultural work vehicle; and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is the first type of agricultural work vehicle: automatically access a first type lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the operation of the first type of agricultural work vehicle; and automatically control the lighting structure for the first type of agricultural work vehicle according to the first type lighting algorithm; and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is the second type of agricultural work vehicle: automatically access a second type lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during operation of the second type of agricultural work vehicle; and automatically control the lighting structure for the second type of agricultural work vehicle according to the second type lighting algorithm.
Farley, like Ries et al., teaches a cab with an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to at least partly automatically determine a type of the agricultural work vehicle comprising at least a first type of agricultural work vehicle and a second type of agricultural work vehicle (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work); and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is the first type of agricultural work vehicle (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work): automatically access a first type lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the operation of the first type of agricultural work vehicle (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work); and automatically control the lighting structure for the first type of agricultural work vehicle according to the first type lighting algorithm (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is the second type of agricultural work vehicle (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work): automatically access a second type lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during operation of the second type of agricultural work vehicle (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work); and automatically control the lighting structure for the second type of agricultural work vehicle according to the second type lighting algorithm (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. modified by Suratad et al. to include a first type lighting algorithm and a second type lighting algorithm as taught by Farley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper lighting based on where the lighting is required due to the type of work such as for safety purposes (Farley: paragraph [0027], for desired lighting for each operating state).
Regarding claim 18, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Farley teaches the cab of claim 17, and teaches (references to Farley) wherein the a first type of agricultural work vehicle comprises a tractor (paragraph [0030]) and the second type of agricultural work vehicle comprises a harvester (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Farley teaches the cab of claim 17, and teaches (references to Farley) wherein the control unit is further configured to at least partly automatically determine whether the agricultural work vehicle is performing a first type of driving or a second type of driving (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode); and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the first type of driving for the first type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state): automatically access a first type of driving-first type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm for the first type of agricultural work vehicle configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the first type of driving of the first type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure of the first type of agricultural work vehicle according to the first type of driving-first type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the second type of driving for the first type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state): automatically access a second type of driving-first type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm for the first type of agricultural work vehicle configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the second type of driving of the first type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure for the first type of agricultural work vehicle according to the second type of driving-first type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the first type of driving for the second type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state): automatically access a first type of driving-second type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm for the second type of agricultural work vehicle configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the first type of driving of the second type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure of the second type of agricultural work vehicle according to the first type of driving-second type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is performing the second type of driving for the second type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state): automatically access a second type of driving-second type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm for the second type of agricultural work vehicle configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during the second type of driving of the second type of agricultural work vehicle (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure for the second type of agricultural work vehicle according to the second type of driving-second type of agricultural work vehicle lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries et al. (US 2021/0284244) in view of Suratad et al. (US 2024/0336108) and Farley (WO 2019036674).
Regarding claim 20, Ries et al. discloses an agricultural work vehicle (10) comprising: a cab (20) comprising: a cab frame including a frame structure (Fig. 9 shows structure) which has a plurality of A-pillars (40) positioned in a front region of the cab and a plurality of B-pillars (40) positioned in a rear region of the cab, wherein the plurality of A-pillars are connected to each other, the plurality of B-pillars are connected to each other, and the plurality of A-pillars are connected to the plurality of B-pillars at respective ends by frame segments extending in a longitudinal direction and in a transverse direction of the cab (Fig. 9 shows the connection between all the pillars (40)), wherein the cab frame comprises a lighting structure (paragraphs [0027]-[0028], (72), (70)) comprising a plurality of individual light modules (paragraph [0028] discusses a plurality of different individual light modules available); a cab roof (38), wherein the plurality of A-pillars and the plurality of B-pillars are positioned substantially vertically and configured to support the cab roof (Fig. 9); and a control unit (paragraphs [0027]-[0028] discuss the control of the lighting structure, such as with other lighting in the vehicle, which would be controlled by a control unit).
Ries et al. does not explicitly disclose that the cab frame is modular in design and the control unit is configured to: determine whether the agricultural work vehicle is travelling on field travel or road travel; responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is travelling on the field travel: access a field travel lighting algorithm; and control the plurality of individual light modules according to the field travel lighting algorithm; and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is travelling on the road travel: access a road travel lighting algorithm; and control the plurality of individual light modules according to the road travel lighting algorithm.
Suratad et al., like Ries et al., teaches an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches the cab frame being modular in design (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. to include a modular aspect to the cab frame as taught by Suratad et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to provide the cab onto multiple types of agricultural work vehicles.
Farley, like Ries et al., teaches a cab with an agricultural work vehicle, and further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the agricultural work vehicle is travelling on field travel or road travel (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode); responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is travelling on the field travel: access a field travel lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode); and control the plurality of individual light modules according to the field travel lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is travelling on the road travel: access a road travel lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode); and control the plurality of individual light modules according to the road travel lighting algorithm (lines 7-13 of paragraph [0027], road or field mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cab of Ries et al. modified by Suratad et al. to include a field travel lighting algorithm and a road travel lighting algorithm as taught by Farley, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the proper lighting based on where the lighting is required due to the type of driving such as for legal regulations (Farley: paragraph [0027], for desired lighting for each mode).
Regarding claim 21, Ries et al. as modified by Suratad et al. and Farley teaches the agricultural work vehicle of claim 20, and teaches (references to Farley) wherein the control unit is further configured to at least partly automatically determine whether the agricultural work vehicle is a tractor or a harvester (lines 1-12 of paragraph [0027], operating state (i.e. different attachments/agricultural work); and wherein the control unit is configured to control the lighting structure by: responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is a tractor travelling on the field travel (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state): automatically access a tractor-field driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during operation of the tractor (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure for the tractor according to the tractor-field driving lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is a tractor travelling on the road travel: automatically access a tractor-road driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during operation of the tractor on a road (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure for the tractor according to the tractor-road driving lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is a harvester travelling on the field travel: automatically access a harvester-field driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during operation of the harvester on a field (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure for the harvester according to the harvester-field driving lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and responsive to determining that the agricultural work vehicle is a harvester travelling on the road travel: automatically access a harvester- road driving lighting algorithm configured to control the lighting structure at least partly during operation of the harvester on the road (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state); and automatically control the lighting structure for the harvester according to the harvester- road driving lighting algorithm (paragraph [0027], road or field mode, operational state).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art made of record teaches at least one adaptive light module integrated into the holding device as claimed. A combination of these limitations and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lang (US 4605257), Hingel (US 10442338), Huenink (US 2022/0305999), Kraus (US 11653587), Omohundro (US 2023/0254556), and Demski (US 11807157) teach lighting/mirror replacements for work vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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 M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights