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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, applicant claims “the stowing device disposed immediately behind the operator’s seat facing to the entrance”. While applicant’s drawings clearly show the stowing device behind the vehicle seat, the term “immediately” did not appear in the originally filed specification. This limitation relates to the distance from the seat and seems to be a new range not previously presented.
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 1-7 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.
The term “immediately” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “immediately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close the stowing device must be to the seat to be “immediately” behind the seat. This term was not used in the originally in the specification. Additionally, as shown in figure 1 of applicant’s drawings, the front edge of the stowing device is obscured by the seat back and it is unclear how close the stowing device is to the seat base. It is unclear exactly what relationship between the seat (the back, the base, or the seat) and stowing device must be to satisfy the claim limitation “immediately behind the operator’s seat”. For purposes of examination below, the phrase has been treated as meaning the storage box must be substantially in an area directly behind the base of the seat.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobenshield et al. (US Patent 8,172,312) in view of James, Jr. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0026171).
Re claim 1, Hobenshield et al. discloses a stowing device being disposed accessibly from behind an operator's seat (12, in figure 1) in an operation cabin (10) on an inside of a cab comprising an entrance (56, 57) at a back part and comprising a visible part (22) allowing to view outside on a floor part at least in front of the operator's seat (as shown by figures 1 and 2, the front window extends to the floor and there is no obstruction to seeing the floor from the front window), the stowing device comprising a stowing part (37) capable of storing something.
Re claim 5, Hobenshield et al. discloses a cab (10) comprising an operation cabin, an entrance (56, 57) formed behind in communication with the operation cabin, an operator's seat (12 in figure 1) disposed in the operation cabin, and the stowing device defined in claim 1 and disposed behind the operator's seat in the operation cabin.
Hobenshield et al. does not disclose the stowing device being disposed immediately behind the operator’s seat facing to the entrance, and the stowing part being disposed removably relative to the cab, wherein at least a part of the stowing part is slanted downwards toward the back part in a disposed state, and the stowing part being formed with an opening at a top part.
James, Jr. teaches a stowing part (cooler 100) being disposed removably relative to a vehicle (by magnets and toolbox 102, paragraph 0043 describes the device as a construction vehicle toolbox), wherein at least a part of the stowing part is slanted downwards (lid 112) and can be faced toward a back part in a disposed state (the stowing part can be faced in any direction as it is attached with repositionable magnets 114 figure 2), and the stowing part being formed with an opening at a top part (the opening is covered by the lid 112 and is shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a stowing device, such as that disclosed by Hobenshield et al., to have the stowing part be disposed removably relative to the cab, wherein at least a part of the stowing part is slanted downwards toward the back part in a disposed state, and the stowing part be formed with an opening at a top part, as taught by James, Jr., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to safely secure a cooler type lunch box inside the cab for the convenience of the operator and in a manner such that the cooler type lunch box does not unexpectedly move or tip over during operation of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the stowing part (cooler 100) immediately behind the operator’s seat facing to the entrance, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would obvious to place the magnetically attachable toolbox wherever convenient in the vehicle of Hobenshield et al. As shown in figures 3 and 4 of Hobenshield, there is adequate and convenient space behind the operators seat and below where the trainee’s feet would be positioned such that it would be out of the way of any cabin occupants moving around the interior of the vehicle.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobenshield et al. (US Patent 8,172,312) in view of James, Jr. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0026171), as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Yamanaka (US Patent 10,611,413).
Hobenshield et al. and James, Jr. disclose all the limitations of the claims, as applied above, except for a body, the cab mounted on the body, and the cab being disposed vertically movably relative to the body.
Yamanaka discloses a body (10, 7, 5, 6 in figure 1), a cab (14) mounted on the body, and the cab being disposed vertically movably relative to the body (see column 7, lines 60-64, the cab is height adjustable relative to the body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a working machine, such as that disclosed by Hobenshield et al., to have a body, the cab mounted on the body, and the cab being disposed vertically movably relative to the body, as taught by Yamanaka, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a body on which the working part of the machine can be mounted and to mount the cab to the body in a manner that absorbs vibration for the comfort of the machine operator (see column 1, lines 36-44 of Yamanaka).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has presented new rejection above of claims 1 and 2 explaining how the combination of Hobenshield et al. (US Patent 8,172,312) in view of James, Jr. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0026171) meets applicant’s new claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments are largely directed to how the Hobenshield et al. reference alone cannot meet the new claim limitations and the examiner largely agreed with these arguments. This prompted the new grounds of rejection for claims 1 and 2 appearing above. As detailed in the rejection above, it is the examiner’s position that it would be obvious to place the cooler 100 of James, Jr. anywhere in the cab of Hobenshield et al. While the examiner acknowledges the specific positioning of the cooler is not taught by James, Jr., one of ordinary skill in the art would place the cooler in any convenient place in the cab. As shown in figures 3 and 4 of Hobenshield, there is adequate and convenient space behind the operators seat and below where the trainee’s feet would be positioned such that the cooler would be out of the way of any cabin occupants moving around the interior of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason S Morrow whose telephone number is (571)272-6663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
June 13, 2025