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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3 lines 2-3 recites “are arranged side by side in a front-back direction” however the examiner suggest amending the claim to “are arranged in a front-back direction” in order to improve the form of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “remote operation device” and “operation portion” in claim 1; “first notification portion” in claim 2 and “second notification portion” in claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,802,496 B2 to Lampley et. al. (Lampley).
In Reference to Claim 1
A work vehicle comprising:
a traveling machine body (tractor) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 20-45);
a work machine (implement) connected to the traveling machine body (tractor) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 1 lines 43-58 and column 2 lines 46-58);
a remote operation device (12 and 36) that operates the traveling machine body (tractor) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 1 lines 43-58 and column 2 lines 46-67); and
an operation portion (buttons 18-20 and 46-48) capable of setting a direction of a forward operation of the remote operation device (12) to either a first direction from the work machine toward the traveling machine body or a second direction from the traveling machine body (tractor) toward the work machine (implement) (“remote tractor control system 10 may include hand held remote control unit 12 having command buttons 18-20 to creep in forward or reverse, command buttons 22-24 to raise or lower the three point hitch, command buttons 30-32 to start or stop the engine, and command buttons 26-28 that may be configurable for various other tractor functions that may be desirable and safe while the operator is off the tractor or seated facing rearwardly and operating rear facing implements such as a backhoe. For example, command buttons 26-28 may be configured to increase or decrease engine speed, raise or lower a front implement, tilt a bucket up or down, or turn the front wheels left or right” and “The rear switch module may include buttons 42-44 that may provide commands to the hitch controller to raise or lower the three point hitch, and buttons 46-48 that may provide commands to the transmission controller to creep in forward and reverse”) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 46-67 and column 3 lines 1-11).
In Reference to Claim 5
The work vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the operation portion (42-44) is provided in the traveling machine body (tractor) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 46-58).
In Reference to Claim 6
The work vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the operation portion (18-20) is provided in the remote operation device (tractor) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 59-67 and column 3 lines 1-11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampley in view of Pub No. US 2018/0334089 A1 to Huang et. al. (Huang).
In Reference to Claim 2
Lampley teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The work vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the traveling machine body (tractor) has a first notification portion that gives notice of a traveling direction of the traveling machine body (tractor) by the forward operation (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 1 lines 43-58 and column 2 lines 46-58).
Lampley does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having a first notification portion that gives notice of a traveling direction of the traveling machine body (tractor) by the forward operation. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first notification portion that gives notice of a traveling direction of the traveling machine body (vehicle) by the forward operation. For example, Huang teaches a notification portion (122a, 122b, 160) that gives notice of a traveling direction of the traveling machine body (300) by the forward operation. Huang further teaches that having such structures notify surrounding people of the direction of the vehicle and to prevent accidents (see at least Huang Figs. 1-2, 4-5 and paragraphs 4-5, 16-19 and 25). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lampley to include the notification portions that gives notice of a traveling direction of the traveling machine body (vehicle) by the forward operation as taught by Huang in order to notify surrounding people of the direction of the vehicle and to prevent accidents.
In Reference to Claim 3
The work vehicle according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the traveling machine body (tractor) and the work machine (implement) are arranged side by side in a front-back direction, the first notification portion (Huang #122a, #122b) is one of a plurality of first notification portions (Huang #122a, #122b) that give notice of the traveling direction of the traveling machine body (tractor) by the forward operation, and the plurality of first notification portions (Huang #122a, #122b) are provided on a front side and a back side of the traveling machine body (tractor) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 1 lines 43-58 and column 2 lines 46-58) (see at least Huang Figs. 1-2, 4-5 and paragraphs 4-5, 16-19 and 25).
In Reference to Claim 4
The work vehicle according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein the traveling machine body (tractor) has a second notification portion ((Huang #160b) that gives notice by a unit different from the first notification portion (Huang #122a, #122b), and at least one of the first notification portion (Huang #122a, #122b) and the second notification portion (Huang #160) gives notice when a setting of the direction of the forward operation (tractor) is switched (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 1 lines 43-58 and column 2 lines 46-58) (see at least Huang Figs. 1-2, 4-5 and paragraphs 4-5, 16-19 and 25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2015/0047918 A1 to Buerkle et. al. (Buerkle) teaches having a remote control for controlling the tractor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 March 3, 2026