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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US 2013/0078071).
Re claim 1, Noguchi teaches (figures 1,2,4,etc.) a working vehicle 1 having a vehicle body (see figures), a travel unit 2, a working unit 4 working by a hydraulic pressure, and a drive source (figure 24) for the travel unit or the working unit, wherein the vehicle body comprises a main body frame provided in a lower portion and serving as a reinforcing member and a support member for an on-board device (figures 2-4), wherein the main body frame comprises a large plate 124 serving as a bottom plate; a pair of left and right longitudinal ribs 122a,122b built upright on the large plate; and a cross rib (unnumbered, shown below 125 in figure 4) built upright on the large plate, wherein the large plate has a cutout area (unnumbered, see figure 4, etc.) provided in a rear portion, facing backward in a plane view, wherein the longitudinal ribs are built upright toward a backward direction along left and right edges of the cutout area to be spaced apart in a left and right direction, and wherein the cross rib intersects the longitudinal ribs and is built upright along a front edge of the cutout area.
Noguchi teaches a counterweight 200,203 is fixed to rear portions of the longitudinal ribs by fixing members, and wherein the counterweight serves as both a weight balance adjusting member for the vehicle body and a cross beam of the main body frame.
Noguchi does not appear to mention the counterweight is directly fixed to a third counterweight mounting section and a fourth counterweight mounting section provided on the large plate by the fixing members to allow the counterweight to be mounted to the large plate. Noguchi does teach numerous further mounting sections & fixing members throughout the drawings and device, numbered (155a,155b, 301,302,234,256,267,255, etc.) and unnumbered (see figures) for releasably connecting various parts, in varied places. Also duplication and rearrangement of parts are obvious modifications (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have had additional counterweight mounting sections and fixing members on further places such as the large plate as claimed in order to further strengthen connections and additional safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (US 2013/0078071) in view of Masanek (US 9,067,521).
Re claim 3, Noguchi teaches lashing points 155a,155b in left and right rear end portions apart from each other across the cutout area, lashing point reinforcing members 157a, 157b are fixedly attached onto the lashing points, and wherein the lashing point reinforcing members are held between the large plate and mounting seats (see figures 2-4) for mounting the counterweight. The lashing points are not directly on the large plate as claimed but duplication and rearrangement of parts are obvious modifications (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Further Masanek teaches multiple lashing point devices 126 with reinforced thickened walls 424 for locking in place & preventing undesired movement during transport / parking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Noguchi as claimed in order to have more lashing points and associated reinforcements in order to have stronger connections located as best suited for varied sized & shaped loads and to prevent undesired movements that could cause safety problems or damage to the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamekura teaches multiple counterweight mounting sections 30a,34,34a & fixing members 35 for releasably connecting parts together.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Noguchi’s counterweight, etc. does not serve as a “reinforcing member” maintaining stiffness as it protects the battery from shocks from the outside. However, the counterweight structures do mention numerous mounting sections & fixing members (bolts & bolt holes etc.) tightening members to each which increases stiffness & reinforce the structure. The additional supports and connections inherently increase stiffness, reinforces & meets the limitations as claimed. Also as noted above, additional mounting sections and fixing member connections are obvious modifications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652