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 8/31/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 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]).
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.
Claim 8 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 Kawakami (JP 2004356106; please see attached translation for reference to pages).
With regards to Claim 8, Goebert and Desbois et al. disclose the tractor as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Goebert does not disclose a battery is provided inside the bonnet.
Kawakami teaches a battery [7] is provided inside the bonnet [16] (see top of page 4 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 and Debois et al. to include a battery provided inside the bonnet, as taught by Kawakami. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide battery power to the engine.
Goebert, Debois et al., and Kawakami do not explicitly disclose a rear end of the headlight extends farther rearward than a rear end of the battery. However, Kawakami substantially discloses the battery [7] disposed at a front end of the bonnet [16] (see Kawakami Figure 1), the battery, radiator, engine, and similar components are disposed to be covered by the bonnet (see Kawakami top of page 4), and the headlight extending between a frontward direction of the bonnet and a rearward direction of the bonnet (see Kawakami Figures 1 and 2) for directing light forward and outward (see Kawakami middle of page 4). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to position the battery such that a rear end of the headlight extends farther rearward than a rear end of the battery in order to sufficiently arrange the battery adjacent a front of the engine room. 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 battery of Goebert, Debois et al., and Kawakami such that a rear end of the headlight extends farther rearward than a rear end of the battery. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the battery at a front end of the bonnet and the headlight to extend rearward from a front end of the bonnet (see Kawakami middle of page 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
With regards to Claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest 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, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims from which Claim 4 depends.
With regards to Claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest a front end of the headlight extends farther forward than a front end of the reserve fuel tank, and a rear end of the headlight extends farther rearward than a rear end of the reserve fuel tank, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim and the claim from which Claim 9 depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner responds below.
With regards to the applicant’s argument that Goebert teaches a vehicle including light emitting elements and reflectors, while Desbois et al. teaches a lighting module including openings in a base plate with sockets, and that Goebert explicitly teaches away from including any openings in a reflector while Desbois et al. discloses a lighting module does not include reflectors and requires openings in the inner walls of the housing, the examiner first notes that the Goebert reference is directed to a headlight intended to illuminate at a wide angle both in front of the vehicle and to the side of the vehicle (see Goebert column 1 lines 7-9 and Figure 2), and Desbois et al. is directed to a headlight intended to illuminate both in a direction in front of the vehicle and to the side of the vehicle (see Desbois et al. bottom of page 3). While Goebert utilizes a light source [56] and reflector structure [54] to accomplish the lighting distribution, Desbois et al. further teaches arranging multiple separated light sources directed in different directions to aid the formation of the front and side illumination. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the headlight arrangement of Goebert with the arrangement utilizing a plurality of offset light sources as taught by Desbois et al. without concern for teaching away from the intention of the headlight of Goebert. Should the applicant intend for a particular arrangement of components of the headlight, language defining the structure of the headlight forming the desired illumination should be included in the independent claim.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights