DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/7/2026. In the amendment, claims 1 and 3-4 have been amended, and claims 8-10 are now newly added. Overall, claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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 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 § 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 1-10 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
In lines 11-13 recites “wherein the direction of forward operation is set to either the first direction or the second direction in the forward work mode and to the other of the first direction or the second direction in the backward work mode” however it is not clear as to what is required by the claim since it looks like the recitation is intending to further describe “the operation portion configured to…” however due to language such as “and to the other of the first direction or the second direction in the backward work mode” and because “forward work mode” and “backward work mode” have not been defined in the claim therefore it is not clear what the language is intending to describe or required by the recitation. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as describing directions of forward and backward in respect to how the traveling machine and work machine are connected to each other based on the selection of the operation portion.
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) 1, 5-6 and 9-10 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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) configured to provide an instruction for setting a direction of forward operation of the remote operation device (12) to either a first direction (backward) from the work machine (implement) toward the traveling machine body (tractor) (when travelling backward the implement is pulled toward the tractor after being attached) or a second direction (forward) from the traveling machine body (tractor) toward the work machine (implement) (when travelling forward the tractor is pushed toward the implement after being attached) (“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” and Lampley teaches that implements can be front or back therefore after the implement is attached to the tractor moving forward and backward therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that once the implement is attached to the tractor in the front or the back and remote control is operated to go forward or backward would perform the function of a first direction (backward) from the work machine (implement) toward the traveling machine body (tractor) (when travelling backward the implement is pulled toward the tractor after being attached) or a second direction (forward) from the traveling machine body (tractor) toward the work machine (implement) (when travelling forward the tractor is pushed toward the implement after being attached)) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 46-67 and column 3 lines 1-11), and
and a control device (38 or 40 or 60) configured to set (actuated by commands), based on the instruction from the operation portion (buttons 18-20 and 46-48), a work mode to either a forward work mode (forward movement) or a backward work mode (backward movement), wherein the direction of forward operation is set to either the first direction (forward) or the second direction (backward) in the forward work mode (forward movement) and to the other of the first direction (forward) or the second direction (backward) in the backward work mode (backward movement) (see at least Lampley Figs. 1-2 and column 3 lines 12-35 “In one embodiment, remote tractor control system 10 may include remote receiver module 14 mounted on the tractor. The remote receiver module may include switch 52 and relay 54 to shut off 12V power to rear fender switch module 36 when the remote receiver module receives a remote enable signal from hand held remoter control unit 12. The remote receiver module may use 12V power only to power the remote enable, and the other switches on the remote receiver module may be powered off of relay 54. The other switches may include three point hitch raise and lower switches 56, and creep forward and reverse switches 58. The three point hitch raise and lower switches, and the creep forward and reverse switches, may be actuated by commands that the remote receiver module receives from the hand held remote control unit when it is enabled. The three point hitch raise and lower switches may connect to hitch controller 38, and the creep forward and reverse switches may connect to transmission controller 40. Additionally, the remote receiver module may send commands received from the hand held remote control unit to engine controller 60, and send engine data from the engine controller to the had held remote control unit. For example, the remote receiver module may be connected to the engine controller via CAN bus 62”).
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).
In Reference to Claim 9
The work vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the direction of forward operation is set to the first direction in the forward work mode (forward movement) and to the second direction in the backward work mode (backward movement) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 59-67 and column 3 lines 1-11).
In Reference to Claim 10
The work vehicle according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the direction of forward operation is set to the second direction in the forward work mode (forward movement) and to the first direction in the backward work mode (backward movement) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 59-67 and column 3 lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7 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).
In Reference to Claim 7
The work vehicle according to claim 4 (see rejection to claim 4 above), wherein: the first notification portion uses a visual notice, and the second notification portion (160) uses an auditory notice (see at least Huang Figs. 1-2, 4-5 and paragraphs [0022], [0019] “Refer to FIG. 5. FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a second embodiment of the driving intention indicating device of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 5, the second embodiment of the driving intention indicating device 200 of the present invention comprises a projection system 220, an input device 230 and a control unit 240. In the present embodiment, the projection system 220 comprises four projection devices 122a, 122b, 122c and 122d respectively arranged on a front portion, a rear portion, a right side and a left side of the vehicle 300, but the present invention is not limited thereto. Similarly, the control unit 240 of the driving intention indicating device 200 of the present invention is configured to control the projection devices 122a, 122b according to a change in a gear position of a gearbox of the vehicle 300. The arrangement of the control unit 240 and the projection devices 122a, 122b for generating the indicating image (or the warning signal) in front of the vehicle (or at the rear of the vehicle) is similar to the first embodiment. For simplification, no further illustration is provided. In the present embodiment, the control unit 240 is also configured to control the projection devices 122c, 122d to project a turn indicating image or a lane change indicating image on a road surface according to a turning instruction or a lane changing instruction. The input device 230 is electrically connected to the control unit 240. The input device 230 is configured to generate the turning instruction or the lane changing instruction according to an input from the driver of the vehicle 300. For example, the input device 230 is configured to generate the turning instruction or the lane changing instruction according to a gesture input, a voice input or a touch input from the driver of the vehicle 300. In addition, the input device 230 can also be electrically connected to a component (such as a turn signal lever) of the vehicle 300 or electrically connected to a button, in order to generate the turning instruction or the lane changing instruction according to a trigger signal of the turn signal lights and/or a trigger signal of the button” and “The driving intention indicating device 100 of the present invention is able to further comprise a speaker 160. When an object is sensed in the edge of the indicating image A by the sensors 180a, 180b, the control unit 140 is configured to control the speaker 160 to generate a warning voice outside of the vehicle 300, in order to warn surrounding people and other drivers to give way the vehicle 300 to prevent traffic accidents.”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampley in view of Pub No. US 2019/0227561 A1 to Hiramatsu (Hiramatsu).
In Reference to Claim 8
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 operation portion (remote control) comprises a touch panel that includes a work mode setting screen, the work mode setting screen including a forward work mode setting and a backward work mode setting (buttons 18-20 and 46-48 to move forward or backward) (see at least Lampley Fig. 2 and column 2 lines 46-67 and column 3 lines 1-11).
Lampley is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the remote control having a touch panel that includes a setting screen. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a remote control having a touch panel that includes a setting screen. For example, Hiramatsu teaches a remote control (112) having a touch panel that includes a setting screen (see at least Lampley Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 70, 91-93).
The substitution of one known element (remote control as shown in Hiramatsu) for another (remote control as shown in Lampley) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the remote control shown in Hiramatsu would have yielded predictable results, namely, controlling the working machine of Lampley to selecting the forward work or backward work modes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Claims 1, 5, and 6 were rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by US Pat. 10,802,496 (Lampley). Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejections. Nevertheless, claim 1 has been amended to advance prosecution. Accordingly, the cited portions of Lampley fail to disclose the specific combination of claim 1. For example, Lampley fails to disclose, as amended in claim 1: an operation portion configured to provide an instruction for setting a direction of forward operation of the remote operation device to either a first direction from the work machine toward the traveling machine body or a second direction from the traveling machine body toward the work machine; and a control device configured to set, based on the instruction from the operation portion, a work mode to either a forward work mode or a backward work mode; wherein the direction of forward operation is set to either the first direction or the second direction in the forward work mode and to the other of the first direction or the second direction in the backward work mode. Lampley discloses "[a] remote tractor control system with a hand held remote ... ." Lampley at Abstract. In rejecting claim 1, the Action alleges that Lampley discloses the above limitations. See Action at 6-7 (citing Lampley FIG. 2, 2:46-67, 3:1-11). However, even as characterized by the Action, the cited portions of Lampley only disclose a "remote tractor control system 10 may include hand held remote control unit 12 having command buttons 18-20 to creep in forward or reverse ...." Id. at 6. Remotely controlling a forward movement or backward movement is not the same as "setting a direction of a forward operation of the remote operation device to either a first direction from the work machine toward the traveling machine body or a second direction from the traveling machine body toward the work machine," as claim 1 recites. While Lampley broadly mentions "command buttons 26-28 that may be configurable for various other tractor functions," those other tractor functions are limited to an "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." Id. 2:54-58 (emphasis added). None of these other tractor functions teach or suggest "setting a direction of forward operation of the remote operation device to either a first direction from the work machine toward the traveling machine body or a second direction from the traveling machine body toward the work machine," as amended claim 1 recites. Nor does Huang remedy the deficiencies of Lampley. Huang discusses "[a] driving intention indicating device includ[ing] a projection system and a control unit." Huang at Abstract. This is for projecting "[w]hen the gear position of the gearbox of the vehicle is switched" or "to indicate a moving direction of the vehicle from a parked position." Id. Huang is silent on "setting a direction of a forward operation of the remote operation device to either a first direction from the work machine toward the traveling machine body or a second direction from the traveling machine body toward the work machine," as claim 1 recites. Further, Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite "a control device" and "wherein the direction of forward operation is set to either the first direction or the second direction in the forward work mode and to the other of the first direction or the second direction in the backward work mode." The Action has not shown that these features are described in Lampley. These claim amendments are supported by the specification at least at [0021], [0044], [0067]-[0068], [0073]- [0074], [0081]-[0085], and [0094]. For at least the above-stated reasons, Lampley fails to disclose each and every element of claim 1; thus, claim 1 is patentable. Huang cannot remedy these deficiencies. Dependent claims 5-6 are patentable for at least the same reasons as base claim 1” however the examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant since as amended Lampley does teach the recited claim 1 since newly amended claimed section merely describes the direction the work machine travels in respect to the implements so once the implement is attached moving forward and backward would read on the claimed recitations and the claims do not recite that the remote operation device is moving the implement toward the work machine while the work machine is standing still but merely describing how work machine in combination with the implement is pulling or pushing each other when they move based on the location of the implement to the working machine which Lampley teaches.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 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 September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights