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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goebert (US 6,447,152).
With regards to Claim 1, Goebert discloses a work vehicle 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); and 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).
With regards to Claim 2, Goebert discloses the work vehicle 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 5, Goebert discloses the work vehicle as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Goebert further discloses the headlight [30] is at a location overlapped with a front portion of the front travel device [20] in a front-rear direction (see Figure 2).
With regards to Claim 7, Goebert discloses the work vehicle 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]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebert (US 6,447,152).
With regards to Claim 3, Goebert discloses the work vehicle 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).
Goebert does not explicitly disclose an LED as the light source. 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 light source of Goebert to be an LED. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase an efficiency of the light source.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebert (US 6,447,152) in view of Watanabe (US 2018/0142859).
With regards to Claim 4, Goebert discloses the work vehicle 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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goebert (US 6,447,152) in view of Walden (US 2014/0007551).
With regards to Claim 6, Goebert discloses the work vehicle 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 work vehicle of Goebert such that the front travel device includes a steerable wheel, as taught by Walden. One would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize a variety of steering states (see Walden paragraph 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Yamato discloses that the working lights are only arranged on the sides of the front grill and clearly spaced away from the bonnet, while amended Claim 1 recites the headlight is provided across a front edge of the bonnet and a lateral side wall portion of the bonnet, and Yamato and Watanabe, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the feature of “the headlight being provided above the motor section and across a front edge of the bonnet and a lateral sidewall portion of the bonnet”, the examiner directs the applicant to Goebert and the rejection of Claim 1 above. Particularly, Goebert discloses a headlight [30] disposed on bonnet [16] at a front edge thereof and a lateral sidewall portion (see Figures 1 and 2). Therefore, at least Goebert does disclose this limitation of amended Claim 1.
Prior Art Referral
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 references Coons (US 4,758,932), which discloses at least a work vehicle including front and rear travel devices, a body, a motor section, a driving section, and a headlight emitting light in a forward and laterally outward direction including at least a light source and reflector, and Eziquiel-Shriro (EP 3106347) which discloses at least a work vehicle including front and rear travel devices, a body, a motor section, a driving section, and a headlight emitting light in a forward and laterally outward direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 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 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