CTNF 19/186,789 CTNF 89966 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered. Applications filed after March 15 th 2013 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebert (US 6,447,152) in view of Desbois et al. (EP 4052963; please see attached translation for reference to pages) . With regards to Claim 1, Goebert discloses a tractor comprising: a front travel device [20] (see column 2 lines 35-37 and Figure 1); a rear travel device [22] (see column 2 lines 36-39 and Figure 1); a body supported by the front travel device [20] and the rear travel device [22] (see column 2 lines 21-55 and Figure 1); a motor section in a front portion of the body (see column 2 lines 24-28 and Figure 1); and a driving section [26] rearward of the motor section in the body (see column 2 lines 46-55 and Figure 1); the front travel device [20] being located forward of the driving section [26] and laterally outward of a lateral side portion of the motor section at a distance from the lateral side portion in a left-right direction (see Figures 1 and 2); the front travel device [20] including a ground contact portion rearward of a front end of the motor section (see Figure 2); the motor section including a headlight [30] to illuminate an area ahead of the body (see column 2 lines 56-67 Figure 2); and the headlight [30] including a light distribution area including an area rearward of a front end of the ground contact portion (see column 1 lines 32-38 and column 4 lines 1-30 and Figure 2); the motor section further including a drive source and a bonnet [16] to house the drive source (see column 2 lines 25-40 and Figure 1); the headlight [30] being provided above the motor section (see column 2 lines 59-67 and Figures 1 and 2; the headlight [30] is provided in an upper portion of the bonnet [16], which substantially covers the motor section from a position above the motor section and thereby is above the motor section) and across a front edge of the bonnet [16] and a lateral side wall portion of the bonnet [16] (see column 3 lines 1-4 and Figures 1 and 2). Goebert does not explicitly disclose the headlight including a plurality of light sources; and the plurality of light sources are at positions offset from each other in a left-right direction and a front-rear direction in a plan view. Desbois et al. teaches the headlight including a plurality of light sources [18,19] (see bottom of page 3 and Figure 3); and the plurality of light sources [18,19] are at positions offset from each other in a left-right direction and a front-rear direction in a plan view (see bottom of page 3 and Figure 3; the light source [18] is substantially offset from the light source [19]). 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 headlight of Goebert to include a plurality of light sources, and the plurality of light sources are at positions offset from each other in a left-right direction and a front-rear direction in a plan view, as taught by Desbois et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to sufficiently illuminate a direction in front of the tractor in a long-range and short-range illumination field and to the side of the tractor (see Desbois et al. bottom of page 3). With regards to Claim 2, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Goebert further discloses the headlight [30] is at a location including an intersection between the front edge of the bonnet [16] and the lateral sidewall portion of the bonnet [16] (see column 2 lines 59-67 and Figures 1 and 2). With regards to Claim 3, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Goebert further discloses the headlight includes a light source assembly including a combination of a light source [36] and a reflector [34] to disperse and reflect light emitted from the light source [36] (see column 2 lines 56-59 and Figures 2 and 3). 14. Goebert does not explicitly disclose an LED as one of the plurality of light sources. However, using an LED as a light source in a work vehicle headlight would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art since LEDs are well-known light sources capable of at least increasing an efficiency of the headlight. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to utilize an LED as the light source in the headlight of Goebert. 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 one of the plurality of light sources of Goebert to be an LED. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase an efficiency of the light source. With regards to Claim 5, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Goebert further discloses the headlight [30] is at a location including an intersection between the front edge of the bonnet [16] and the lateral sidewall portion of the bonnet [16] (see column 2 lines 59-67 and Figures 1 and 2). With regards to Claim 7, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Goebert further discloses the ground contact portion is outside the light distribution area directly irradiated with light emitted from the headlight [30] (see Figures 1 and 2; due to the position of the headlight [30] above the front travel device [20], light from the headlight [30] will be blocked by an upper portion of the front travel device [20] and the ground contact portion will substantially not be irradiated directly by light from the headlight [30]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebert (US 6,447,152) as modified by Desbois et al. (EP 4052963; please see attached translation for reference to pages), further in view of Watanabe (US 2018/0142859) . With regards to Claim 4, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 3. Goebert does not disclose the LED is in an upper portion of the light source assembly to emit light downward toward the reflector in a lower portion of the light source assembly. Watanabe et al. teaches the LED [24A] is in an upper portion of the light source assembly to emit light downward toward the reflector [30A] in a lower portion of the light source assembly (see paragraph 53 and Figure 2; the orientation of the headlight is such that the LED [24A] is disposed on an upper side of the reflector [30A], with the LED [24A] emitting light downwards toward reflector [30A]). 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 position of the LED light source relative the reflector of Goebert such that the LED is in an upper portion of the light source assembly to emit light downward toward the reflector in a lower portion of the light source assembly, as taught by Watanabe et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to emit light from an efficient light source over a wide range (see Watanabe et al. paragraph 86) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebert (US 6,447,152) as modified by Desbois et al. (EP 4052963; please see attached translation for reference to pages), further in view of Walden (US 2014/0007551) . With regards to Claim 6, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 1. Goebert does not disclose the front travel device includes a steerable wheel. Walden teaches the front travel device includes a steerable wheel [1a] (see paragraph 32 and Figure 1). 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 tractor of Goebert such that the front travel device includes a steerable wheel, as taught by Walden . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner responds below . With regards to the applicant’s argument that Goebert, Watanabe, and Walden, alone or in combination, do not disclose the amended limitations of Claim 1, particularly that the headlight includes a plurality of light sources and the plurality of light sources are at positions offset from each other in a right-left direction and a front-rear direction in a plan view, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have motivation to modify the Goebert invention in the manner required by the amended claim and such modification would teach away from the Goebert invention, the examiner directs the applicant to the above rejection of Claim 1 over Goebert as modified by Desbois et al. Particularly, Goebert discloses a headlight which projects light in directions forward of and laterally away from the front of the tractor (see, e.g., Goebert Figure 2). Desbois et al. teaches a headlight [17] utilizing a combination of light sources [18,19] which are offset from one another in each a left-right direction and a front-rear direction (see Desbois et al. Figure 3), in order to provide illumination in front of the tractor and along the sides of the tractor in both a long range and a short range from the tractor (see Desbois et al. bottom of page 3). Therefore, the combination of Goebert and Desbois et al. does substantially disclose the tractor of amended Claim 1, and Desbois et al. substantially provides motivation for modification of Goebert’s tractor, which does not teach away from the invention of Goebert . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the reference Nogami (JP 2005119430), which discloses at least a headlamp for a working vehicle such as a tractor including a plurality of light sources with reflectors, the light sources being offset from one another in a forward/rear direction and in a left/right direction . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m. 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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. /ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 2 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 3 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 4 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 5 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 6 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 7 Art Unit: 2875 Application/Control Number: 19/186,789 Page 8 Art Unit: 2875
Prosecution Insights