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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (WO 2015083771 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches “A cab comprising:
a ceiling part including a top window (transparent or translucent sunroof, see paragraph 0111);
a roll blind including a screen disposed on an inside of the top window (roll curtain provided on inside of sunroof, see paragraph 0115), and a winding device disposed inside the ceiling part on a rear side of the top window, the winding device being configured to wind up the screen (see paragraph 0115 and Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotation Set 1);
a first duct disposed inside the ceiling part, the first duct passing below the winding device (see Miyazaki, Figures 12, Annotation Set 1, 13, Annotation Set 1, and 15B); and
a louver disposed further to a front side than the winding device and in a first air outlet of the first duct (see Miyazaki, Figures 12, Annotation Set 1, 13, Annotation Set 1, and 15B).”
PNG
media_image1.png
233
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotation Set 1
PNG
media_image2.png
479
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki, Figure 13, Annotation Set 1
PNG
media_image3.png
383
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki, Figure 15B
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki teaches “The cab according to claim 1, wherein a lower surface of a space in which the screen is disposed from the winding device to the rear side of the top window, is sloped forward and downward (See Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image4.png
179
308
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotation Set 2
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki teaches “The cab according to claim 1, wherein the louver is disposed so as to overlap the winding device in a height direction (Vertical plane that louver is located on located closer to the inside of the cab than vertical plane that winding device is located on, see Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotation Set 1).”
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki teaches “The cab according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second duct disposed in the ceiling part (ducting is mirrored across vehicle, thus there are two sets of ducts, see Miyazaki, Figure 13), the second duct passing from a rear toward a front at a side of top window (see Miyazaki, Figure 13, Annotation Set 2), wherein the second duct including includes a second air outlet disposed at a front end of the ceiling part (see Miyazaki, Figure 13, Annotation Set 2), and a sloping portion joined to the second air outlet, an upper surface side of the sloping portion being sloped forward and downward (see Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotations Set 3).”
PNG
media_image5.png
498
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki, Figure 13, Annotation Set 2
PNG
media_image6.png
179
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Miyazaki, Figure 12, Annotation Set 3
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (WO 2015083771 A1), in view of Watanabe (US 6282911 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki teaches all the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 1 above, except for “wherein the first duct is disposed extending from a rear toward a front up to the rear side of the top window.”
However, Watanabe teaches “wherein the first duct is disposed extending from a rear toward a front up to the rear side of the top window (see Watanabe, Figure 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to relocate the cab air ducts as taught by Miyazaki towards the rear of the top window as taught by Watanabe, to prevent the ducting system from obscuring the driver’s view of the top window, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image7.png
303
412
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Watanabe, Figure 1
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki (WO 2015083771 A1), in view of Schmitz (DE 102019004227 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki teaches all the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 1 above, except for “locking members disposed at both ends of the top window, the locking members being configured to lock the screen.”
However, Schmitz teaches “locking members disposed at both ends of the top window, the locking members being configured to lock the screen (roller blind can be locked to front side of window via a releasable fixture, see paragraph 0048, roller blind can be held at rear of window via a spring bias in the roller, see paragraph 0049).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the roll blind taught by Miyazaki with a means to hold the blind in an open and closed position, to prevent roll blind from changing position undesirably, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references all disclose air conditioned vehicle cabins:
Fuerst et al. (US 5248278 A) discloses a vehicle roof fitted with a ventilation system, fails to disclose a roll shade.
Nagami et al. (JP 5341568 B2) discloses an air conditioned vehicle cab, but lacks a window on the roof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
JRC
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights