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 3-10 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 claim(s) contains 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation in claim 3 that a lower bottom plate of the rear anti-collision body portion inclines upward to form an angle greater than or equal to a departure angle of the engineering machine relative to a horizontal plane is 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not specifically define what determines the departure angle of the engineering machine. Claim 3 has been interpreted, as best understood, with respect to treating the recitation of a bottom plate having an upper incline relative to a horizontal plane. However, the claimed comparison between the bottom plate upper incline angle and the “departure angle” cannot be treated because the departure angle of the engineering machine has not been clearly defined in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 20050194756 in view of JP 3669535.
Regarding claim 1, JP 20050194756 discloses:
An anti-collision structure for an engineering machine (1; Fig. 1; disclosed as a “hydraulic power shovel” in para. [00103, line 1), the engineering machine having a tail frame (see annotated Fig. 1 below) at its rear end, characterized in that the anti-collision structure comprises an anti-collision body (10 and 11; Figs. 2 and 3; disclosed as a “side guard” and a “side guard mounting bracket”, respectively, in para. [0014], lines 1-3) that at least partially covers side walls (in that anti-collision body 10 is shown in Fig. 1 as extending along the sides of platform 9 whose construction shown in Figs. 1-3 is considered to comprise side walls and which is considered to be part of the tail frame towards the rear end of the engineering machine 1 in Fig. 1) of the tail frame, wherein the anti-collision body is made of plates (10 and 11; Figs. 2 and 3) and (plate 10; Fig. 2) is configured to have a streamline shape (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 below as a curved shape) and a hollow structure (defined between plates 10 and 11 as shown in Figs. 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP 20050194756 does not disclose that the anti-collision body at least partially covers a rear end wall of the tail frame.
However, JP 3669535 discloses an anti-collision structure (20 and 22; Fig. 1; disclosed as a “contact prevention device” in para. [0014], line 1 and as a “bar” in para. [0015], second to last line, respectively) for an engineering machine (10; Fig. 1; disclosed as a “swiveling heavy machine” in para. [0014], line 1) the engineering machine (10; Fig. 1 ) having a tail frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) at its rear end, characterized in that the anti-collision structure comprises an anti-collision body (20 and 22; Fig. 1; disclosed as a “contact prevention device” in para. [0014], line 1 and as a “bar” in para. [0015], second to last line, respectively) that at least partially covers side walls (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a rear end wall (see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the tail frame, as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
519
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The JP 3669535 reference is considered to be relevant art in that the JP 3669535 reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to engineering collision protection devices, as the JP 20050194756 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to also provide the an anti-collision body of JP 20050194756 to at least partially cover a rear end wall of the tail frame in addition to it covering covers side walls of the end frame as taught by JP 3669535 with a reasonable expectation of success so that protection can be provided in the event of contact with the rear of the engineering machine.
Regarding claim 2, JP 20050194756, as modified by JP 3669535, discloses:
The anti-collision structure according to claim 1, as explained above, characterized in that the anti-collision body is constructed as an integral component (in that it is “formed as a unit with another part”, namely plates 10 and 11 of JP 20050194756, where the definition of the term integral is taken from merriamwebster.com), and is installed on the tail frame, i.e., platform 9, by welding (as described in para. [0014], line 2 of JP 20050194756).
Regarding claim 3, JP 20050194756, as modified by JP 3669535, discloses:
The anti-collision structure according to claim 1, as explained above, characterized in that the anti-collision body comprises a left anti-collision body portion (10; Fig. 1; as shown on the left side wall in annotated Fig. 1 of JP 20050194756 above), a right anti-collision body portion (hidden, yet symmetrically positioned on the right side wall in annotated Fig. 1 of JP 20050194756 above), and a rear anti-collision body portion (resultant of the teaching of JP 3669535 in the the combination of JP 20050194756 and JP 3669535) that cover a left side wall, a right side wall, and a rear end wall of the tail frame, respectively; the left and right anti-collision body portions each have a streamline shape (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 above as a curved shape) in the longitudinal direction (of the engineering machine) the rear anti-collision body portion has a streamline shape in the transverse direction (of the engineering machine), wherein a lower bottom plate (10; Fig. 2 which has a portion that is lower than the plate 11 as pointed out in annotated Fig. 2 below) of the rear anti-collision body portion inclines upward (as shown by a dotted line in annotated Fig. 2 below) to form an angle relative to a horizontal plane.
PNG
media_image3.png
902
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, JP 20050194756, as modified by JP 3669535, discloses:
The engineering machine, characterized by comprising a tail frame (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 above) arranged at a rear end thereof, and an anti-collision structure (10; Fig. 1) according to claim 1, as explained above, mounted on the tail frame (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 20050194756 in view of JP 3669535, as applied above to claim 11, and further in view of Imashige US 7,810,567.
Regarding claim 12, JP 20050194756, as modified by JP 3669535, discloses:
The engineering machine according to claim 11, as explained above, except that the tail frame is constructed to accommodate a power battery pack of the engineering machine.
However, Imashige discloses an engineering machine (Fig. 5; col. 2, line 33) with a tail frame (19; Fig. 4; disclosed as a “counterweight” in col. 3, line 5) that is constructed to accommodate a power battery pack (24; Fig. 4) of the engineering machine.
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Imashige reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Imashige reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to excavator constructions, as the JP 20050194756 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to provide a battery pack in the tail frame of JP 20050194756, as modified by JP 3669535, discloses with a battery pack as taught by Imashige with a reasonable expectation of success so that the battery may be directly supported by a body frame rather than by the body frame via the counterweight. Motivation provided by the last four lines of claim 1 of Imashige.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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 and if the 112(a) rejection to parent claim 3 is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 recites the anti-collision structure according to claim 3, characterized in that the left anti-collision body portion comprises a front coaming plate assembly, an intermediate coaming plate assembly, a rear coaming plate assembly, and a left upper wing assembly, wherein the front coaming plate assembly and the rear coaming plate assembly each comprise a main plate that is generally frustoconically shaped and an arc-shaped transition plate connected to the main plate; the intermediate coaming plate assembly comprises at least one rectangular plate; the left upper wing assembly comprises a strip plate and a trapezoidal plate connected at an angle relative to each other. JP 20050194756, the closest prior art of record merely discloses a pair of connected plates and lacks the details of the anti-collision body portion having coaming plate assemblies, a n upper wing assembly, a generally frustoconically shaped main plate with an arc-shaped transition plate, where the left upper wing assembly comprises a strip plate and a trapezoidal plate connected at an angle relative to each other
Claims 5-10, which ultimately depend on claim 4, are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to their dependence on claim 4 which contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swick US 3,139,290 discloses a bumper for a loader.
CN 107165218 discloses a bumper (7; Figs 1 and 2) for an excavating machine.
JP H0739972 discloses an engineering machine bumper arrangement 16, 17 (Fig. 4).
EP 3718831 discloses a material loader bumper arrangement.
Mellner US 4,068,86 discloses a bumper construction for an engineering machine.
KR 20130047160 discloses a side impact protection system for a construction machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 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, 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Jdp
10/25/25