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 § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang(CN 102582689 B).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a frame, comprising pillars, cross beams and longitudinal beams(fig 1); wherein, the pillars comprise A-pillars, B-pillars and D-pillars; the cross beams comprise top cross beams and bottom cross beams(see fig below); the longitudinal beams comprise top longitudinal beams and bottom longitudinal beams; two said A-pillars are connected through a first top cross beam and a first bottom cross beam to form a closed rectangular A-ring; two said B-pillars are connected through a second top cross beam and a second bottom cross beam to form a closed rectangular B-ring; two said D-pillars are connected through a third top cross beam and a third bottom cross beam to form a closed rectangular D-ring; four corners of the A-ring and corresponding four corners of the B-ring are connected through a first top longitudinal beam and a first bottom longitudinal beam, and four corners of the B-ring and four corresponding corners of the D-ring are connected through a second top longitudinal beam and a second bottom longitudinal beam, such that a closed spatial framework structure is formed(see figs 1, 12,15) .
PNG
media_image1.png
593
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 cab for engineering machines, comprising the axially symmetric ROPS framework according to Claim 1 (para 0010, 0011, 0076)
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 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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang(CN 102582689 B).
Claims 2-4 are rejected because the ratio of an inertia moment is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. It does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-9,11 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.
Regarding claim 5, the closes prior art on record is Wang(CN 102582689 B). However, Wang does not show disclose or render obvious the combination of an optimal design method for the top cross beams of the axially symmetric ROPS framework according to Claim 1 , comprising the followings steps: extracting a length dimension W of the top cross beams and a length dimension L of the pillars according to the ROPS framework structure to form a portal hyperstatic structural mechanics model, and obtaining, by analysis with the portal hyperstatic structural mechanics’ model. More specifically, the combination further comprising a bending moment distribution relation between the top cross beams and the pillars; selecting a profile sectional inertia moment I, which is a key factor determining bending moment distribution in the mechanics model, as a design parameter of profiles; analyzing bending stress of the portal hyperstatic structural mechanics model by means of structural mechanics software to obtain the ratio n of the inertia moment I of the top cross beams to the inertia moment I of the pillars when the maximum bending stress of the top cross beams is equal to the maximum bending stress of the pillars; and obtaining a relation for optimal design of the top cross beams according to the ratio n of the inertia moment I of the top cross beams to the inertia moment I of the pillars; selecting profiles of the top cross beams and the corresponding pillars according to the relation for optimal design of the top cross beams.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMS DHANANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) - 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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571) 270-5985. 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.
SHAMS . DHANANI
Examiner
Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights