DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7 – 8 recites the limitation “located on below the” which should be changed to “located below the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuse et al. (DE 4118195 A1) in view of Kamiya et al. (JP H10230879 A).
For claim 1, Furuse et al. discloses a work vehicle comprising:
[a driver's seat 107] (page 2, paragraph [0004]);
[a steering wheel 104] (page 3, paragraph [0005]) [located in front of the driver's seat] (fig. 4);
[a steering shaft 103] (page 2, paragraph [0003]) [connected to the steering wheel] (fig. 4);
[a motor 102 to rotate the steering shaft] (fig. 4, page 1, paragraph [0002], wherein the steering shaft is rotated relative to an end point of the steering shaft opposite of the steering wheel); and
a first controller 105 [to control the motor] (page 5, paragraph [0010]), but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first controller is located below the driver's seat and on a floor in front of the driver's seat.
Kamiya et al. discloses an electric vehicle 1 comprising [a step plate 5 attached to a central part of a floor cowl 4 to form a flat surface] (page 13, paragraph [0014]); [a rectangular recess is formed in a central part of the floor cowl for housing a control unit 37 in the form of a control unit housing 38] (page 17, paragraph [0017]); [two reinforcing members 37A are attached to an upper side of the control unit, on a left and right, to support a load applied to the step plate] (pages 18 and 19, paragraph [0018]); [a seat 7 consists of a chair-shaped seat 6 and two seat legs 24] (page 23, paragraph [0022]); and [the control unit is located below the driver’s seat and on the step plate in front of the driver’s seat] (figs. 9 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the positioning of the controller and covering of Kamiya et al. with the work vehicle of Furuse et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall protective, easily accessible location, thus reducing overall damage and maintenance replacement costs.
For claim 6, Furuse et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle [wherein the first controller is located in such an arrangement that a height in an up-down direction of the first controller becomes a lowest height] (fig. 11 of Kamiya et al.).
For claim 8, Furuse et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle further comprising a controller cover 38 [fixed to the floor to cover the first controller] (fig. 11, page 17, paragraph [0017] of Kamiya et al.).
For claim 11, Furuse et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle [wherein the first controller is located on a seat support frame 38] (page 17, paragraph [0017]) [that supports the driver's seat] (indirectly).
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuse et al. (DE 4118195 A1) in view of Kamiya et al. (JP H10230879 A), and further in view of Arie et al. (WO 2007026923 A2).
For claim 3, Furuse et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the work vehicle wherein the first controller is located on a first side in a left-right direction of a front panel to be equipped with the steering wheel.
Arie et al. discloses a steering wheel 12; and [a first meter cluster panel 16 and a second meter cluster panel 18 are disposed in an instrument panel 14] (figs. 1 and 3, page 14, lines 20 – 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the front panel and display of Arie et al. with the work vehicle of Furuse et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for displaying vehicle operation measurements, thus allowing for the driver to operator the vehicle within appropriate speeds.
For claim 4, Furuse et al. modified as above does not explicitly disclose the work vehicle further comprising a second controller located apart from the first controller,
wherein the second controller is located on a second side in the left-right direction of the front panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an additional controller and seat drive motor provided under a passenger’s seat through duplication of parts with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved comfort for the passenger seat, thus improving overall ergonomics for the passenger.
For claim 5, Furuse et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle further comprising [a display 16, 18 located on the first side in the left-right direction of the front panel] (in view of the modification above, fig. 4 of Furuse et al. and fig. 3 of Arie et al.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuse et al. (DE 4118195 A1) in view of Kamiya et al. (JP H10230879 A), and further in view of Kodera (JP 2020172235 A) and Sherwin (US 2003/0141134 A1).
For claim 9, Furuse et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle further comprising:
a floor cover 28 [located on the floor] (fig. 11, page 17, paragraph [0017]); but does not explicitly disclose
a second controller located apart from the first controller;
wiring including a wire to connect the first controller to the second controller.
Kodera discloses a vehicle comprising [a control device 50 executes steering control to steering steered wheels 16] (page 33, paragraph [0037]); and [the vehicle is equipped with a host control device 500 that controls, for example, the control devices of various in-vehicle systems] (pages 34 and 35, paragraph [0038]), but does not explicitly disclose wiring including a wire to connect the first controller to the second controller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the host control device of Kodera with the work vehicle of Furuse et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for cooperative control of other in-vehicle systems, thus improving overall steering and operation of the vehicle.
Sherwin discloses [a first electronic control unit 22 is electrically connected to a second electronic control unit 28 by a communication wire 106; and other forms of communication between the first electronic control unit and the second electronic control unit are contemplated, for example, wireless communication or hard wiring may be used] (pages 3 and 4, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the wire connection of Sherwin with the work vehicle of Furuse et al. modified as above with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for proper sending and receiving of signals, thus allowing for improving overall efficiency of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 12, and 13 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: the prior art fails to disclose:
For claim 10: a wall that is located at an outer edge of the floor and extends upwardly; and a connector located at a position higher than an upper end of the wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 – 6, 8, 9, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights