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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations in claim 1 are:
"a traveling device". Paragraph 40 of the US PgPub indicates "The traveling device 23 includes wheels 27 and tires 28."
"a power device that causes hydrogen to react with oxygen and generates power for driving the traveling device ". Paragraph 43 of the US PgPub indicates "the power device 24 includes a fuel cell 29 that generates electric power by causing electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen".
"a sprinkling device that sprays water generated in the power device" in claim 1. Paragraphs 45-50 of the US PgPub indicates describes the correspond structure(s) to be sprayers.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 de Kontz (US 2016/0298306) in view of Anderson (US 2019/0351784).
With respect to claim 1, de Kontz discloses a haul vehicle (102, paragraph 19) comprising: a dump body (200; fig. 1 also shows a dump truck with a dump body); a vehicle body (structure under 200; fig. 2) that supports the dump body; a traveling device (wheels in figs. 1-2) that supports the vehicle body (body of vehicle shown in figs. 1-2); a water storage tank (200) that stores water; and a sprinkling device (202) that sprays the water stored in the water storage tank and sprinkles the water to at least a part of a periphery of the vehicle body (paragraph 31 “spray the fluid onto the surface of worksite 100 as fluid delivery machine 106 travels about worksite 100”). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 18-60.) de Kontz is silent regarding a power device that causes hydrogen to react with oxygen and generates power for driving the traveling device; a water storage tank that stores water generated in the power device. Anderson teaches of a power device (104) that causes hydrogen to react with oxygen and generates power for driving the traveling device (paragraph 16); a water storage tank (106) that stores water generated in the power device (104) and a sprinkling device (110, paragraph 24) that sprays the water stored in the water storage tank and sprinkles the water to at least a part of a periphery of the vehicle body. (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs 19-50.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Anderson into the invention of de Kontz with a reasonable expectation of success because the ability for a sprayer or concrete mixer to perform required operations at a lower consumption rate of water use is highly preferential. (Paragraph 17.)
Claims 2-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Kontz and Anderson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichinose et al. (JP 2013/103618 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 2-5 and 8-10, de Kontz, as modified, discloses spraying water onto the surface of a worksite (100) (fig. 1) but does not specifically disclose the front side of the vehicle. Ichinose et al. teaches of the sprinkling device (4a) sprinkles the water (W) to a front side in a traveling direction of the vehicle body (figs. 3, 5, 7-9); the sprinkling device (4a) sprinkles the water to a front side in a traveling direction of the traveling device (2d) (figs. 3, 5, 7-9); the traveling device includes driving wheels (2d), and the sprinkling device sprinkles the water (W) to a front side of the driving wheels (figs. 3, 5, 7-9); the sprinkling device (4a) is arranged at a front portion (figs. 3, 5, 7-9) of the vehicle body (figs. 3, 5, 7-9); wherein the sprinkling device (4a) sprinkles the water to the front side of the traveling device (2d) in a forward movement of the traveling device; the traveling device includes front wheels (2d) and rear wheels (2e), and the sprinkling device (4a) sprinkles the water to the front side of the front wheels (2d); wherein the sprinkling device and at least a part of the front wheels are located at a same position in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle body (MTD paragraphs 32-33; fig. 3). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 26-73.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Ichinose et al. into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success to suppress or prevent the generation of dust when the cargo truck passes by, especially on sunny, windy days. (MTD paragraph 36.)
With respect to claim 11, de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding the dump body functioning to have a dump motion inclined backwards. Ichinose et al. teaches of the dump body makes a dumping motion in such a manner as to be inclined backward (figs. 3-5, MTD abstract describing the vehicle as a dump truck). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 26-73.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Ichinose et al. into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a sprinkler system to a variety of vehicles. (MTD paragraph 72.)
Claims 6-7, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Kontz and Anderson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayahara et al. (JP 2020/036403 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 6-7, de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding an outside air induction port. Mayahara et al. teaches of an outside air introduction port is provided in a portion of the vehicle body (MTD paragraph 17), and the power device generates the power by oxygen introduced from the outside air introduction port (MTD paragraphs 12-18); wherein the sprinkling device and at least a part of the outside air introduction port are located at a position in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle body. (Figs. 1-4, MTD paragraphs 6-36.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Mayahara et al. into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success so that spraying can be performed from the spraying device without having to replenish the tank with water beforehand. (MTD paragraph 6.) de Kontz, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the outside air introduction port is provided in a front portion of the vehicle body and the sprinkling device and at least a part of the outside air introduction port are located at a same position in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the outside air introduction port is provided in a front portion of the vehicle body and the sprinkling device and at least a part of the outside air introduction port are located at a same position in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle body, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claims 12 and 15-16, de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding the power device. Mayahara et al. teaches of the power device includes: a fuel cell (100) that generates electric power by causing an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen; a condenser (231) that condenses water vapor generated in the fuel cell; and a traveling driving motor that generates the power on a basis of the electric power generated by the fuel cell (MTD paragraph 8), wherein water generated in the condenser is stored in the water storage tank (420); further comprising a sprinkling pump (MTD paragraph 10) that supplies the water stored in the water storage tank (420) to the sprinkling device (430); further comprising a pipe (figs. 1-2) that connects the sprinkling pump (MTD paragraph 10) and the sprinkling device (430). (Figs. 1-4, MTD paragraphs 6-36.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Mayahara et al. into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success so that spraying can be performed from the spraying device without having to replenish the tank with water beforehand. (MTD paragraph 6.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Kontz and Anderson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayahara et al. and Shoji et al. (JP 2015/003528 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 13, de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding the power device. Mayahara et al. teaches of the power device includes: a fuel cell (100) that generates electric power by causing an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen; a condenser (231) that condenses water vapor generated in the fuel cell; wherein water generated in the condenser is stored in the water storage tank (420). (Figs. 1-4, MTD paragraphs 6-36.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Mayahara et al. into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success so that spraying can be performed from the spraying device without having to replenish the tank with water beforehand. (MTD paragraph 6.) de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding a hydrogen engine. Shoji et al. teaches of the power device includes: a hydrogen engine (or a fuel cell) generates the power by causing a combustion reaction between hydrogen and oxygen (MTD paragraph 75). (Figs. 1-6, MTD paragraphs 14-88.) Because both de Kontz, as modified, and Shoji et al. teach methods for providing power for a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (using a fuel cell) for the other (using a hydrogen engine) for the predictable result of powering a vehicle.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Kontz and Anderson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayahara et al. and Shoji et al. (JP 2015/003528 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’), as cited by Applicant, and Yoshino (US 2005/0044853).
With respect to claim 14, de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding the power device. Mayahara et al. teaches of the power device includes: a fuel cell (100) that generates electric power by causing an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen; a condenser (231) that condenses water vapor generated in the fuel cell; and a traveling driving motor that generates the power on a basis of the electric power generated by the fuel cell (MTD paragraph 8), wherein water generated in the condenser is stored in the water storage tank (420). (Figs. 1-4, MTD paragraphs 6-36.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Mayahara et al. into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success so that spraying can be performed from the spraying device without having to replenish the tank with water beforehand. (MTD paragraph 6.) de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding a hydrogen engine. Shoji et al. teaches of the power device includes: a hydrogen engine (or a fuel cell) generates the power by causing a combustion reaction between hydrogen and oxygen (MTD paragraph 75). (Figs. 1-6, MTD paragraphs 14-88.) Because both de Kontz, as modified, and Shoji et al. teach methods for providing power for a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one method (using a fuel cell) for the other (using a hydrogen engine) for the predictable result of powering a vehicle. de Kontz, as modified, is silent regarding a generator. Yoshino teaches of a generator (paragraphs 46, 52-55, 61) that generates electric power on a basis of the power generated by the hydrogen engine (paragraph 35). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 34-76.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power device structure as described in Yoshino into the invention of de Kontz, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to supply electrical energy on demand. (Paragraph 61.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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: Claim 17 includes the limitations of a first sprinkling pump (88) that supplies the water stored in the water storage tank to the sprinkling tank (87); and a second sprinkling pump (89) that supplies the water stored in the sprinkling tank (87) to the sprinkling device, wherein the sprinkling device sprinkles the water supplied from the water storage tank (25) to the sprinkling tank. (Fig. 12.) The closest prior art, Mayahara et al. (JP 2020/036403 A), does not teach a second sprinkling pump. These and the other recited features was not reasonably found in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday.
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 at 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights