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 .
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 § 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) sized to hold a pair of shoes (the size of 37 is such that it can hold various shoes of various shapes and sizes).
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 just 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 sized to carry a pair of shoes (cooler 100, note that although the intended use of the device is for carrying food, it is capable of carrying a pair of shoes depending on the size and type of the shoe) 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. Note that although intended to be used for holding food, the cooler type lunch box is capable of carrying anything inside of it the user deems convenient and useful, including a pair of shoes if desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the stowing part (cooler 100) just 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 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s argument’s regarding the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) were persuasive and thus those rejections have been withdrawn.
However, applicants argument’s regarding the rejections of claims 1-5 are 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) were not persuasive.
Applicant, first argues that Hobenshield fails to disclose or suggest that the storage space is disposed just behind the operator’s seat. While the examiner agrees that Hobenshield does not show this feature, the rejection of claims 1-5 does not rely solely on Hobenshield to discloses this feature. Applicant also argues that the space 47 is configured for storing shoes or being specifically sized to hold a pair of shoes. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The storage space 37 is certainly of a size and configuration that it is capable of holding a pair of shoes. Applicant gives no explanation as to why the storage space 37 is incapable of holding a pair of shoes.
Applicant argues that the combination of Hobenshield and James fails to disclose or suggest the stowing device and stowing part being located within an operation cabin just behind an operator’s seat and facing an entrance. Applicant argues that James does not contemplate the stowing part of James (cooler 100) being used for the storage of shoes. The examiner agrees that James does not specifically mention such a use of the stowing part, but the device of James is capable of operating according to applicant’s functional claim language and any structural difference between what is claimed and what is shown by James is not apparent. The stowing part of James is capable of carrying shoes or any number of other devices or objects such as shirts, sunglasses, gloves, or anything else that will fit inside. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant further argues that applicant’s specific arrangement of the cabin and stowing device would result in a cleaner cabin and that the suggested combination of Hoobenshield and James above would not realize the benefits of applicant’s invention. While applicant’s assertion may be true, applicant’s claim language does not preclude the arrangement suggested by the combination of Hoobenshield and James above and the motivation to make the combination does not have to be the same as applicant’s motivation for creating the claimed arrangement.
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 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
December 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights