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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5, lines 2 – 3 recites “wherein the at least one travel device comprises a right travel device and a left travel device”, however, claim 4, lines 2 – 3 positively recites “the at least one travel device comprises a front travel device and a rear travel device”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the right travel device and left travel device are a part of the front travel device, a part of the rear travel device, or part of both the front travel device and the rear travel device.
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. 10 3 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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2019/0211915 A1) in view of Swannie (US 2005/0104322 A1).
For claim 1, Davis et al. discloses work vehicle 10 comprising
a body frame 14 provided with at least one travel device 16;
a hitch attachment section 94 [configured to enable attachment and removal of a hitch for attaching a work device and a hitch for towing] (page 5, paragraph [0131]), [the hitch attachment section being in a front portion or a rear portion of the body frame] (page 5, paragraph [0131], fig. 14); but does not explicitly disclose
a sensor support supporting at least one obstacle sensor for detecting an obstacle, and configured to be attached to the hitch attachment section and removed from the hitch attachment section.
Swannie discloses a device 2 comprising a housing 4 and an extension 6, [sensors 24 positioned on angled end faces 20] (pages 1 and 2, paragraph [0021]); [a camera 26 may be replaced with another sensor 36 to provide an area of coverage larger than a two-sensor embodiment of Fig. 1] (page 2, paragraph [0024]); and [the extension is removably received within a receiver 62] (page 2, paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the sensor support of Swannie with the work vehicle of Davis et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for providing a warning device that indicates a proximity of an obstructing object; thus reducing unwanted collision.
For claim 2, Davis et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle
wherein the sensor support comprises:
a first section 4 [supporting the at least one obstacle sensor and extending along a left-right direction] (fig. 1); and
a second section 6 [attached to the first section and extending along a front-rear direction] (figs. 1 and 6), and [wherein the sensor support is attached to the hitch attachment section by inserting the second section into the hitch attachment section] (page 1, paragraph [0019]).
For claim 4, Davis et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle
wherein the at least one travel device comprises a front travel device 16 and a rear travel device 16, and
[wherein after the sensor support is attached to the hitch attachment section, the first section is in front of the front travel device or behind the rear travel device] (figs. 7 and 14, wherein a portion of the sensor support is behind a rear of the rear travel device).
For claim 5, Davis et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle
[wherein the at least one travel device comprises a right travel device and a left travel device] (fig. 7); but does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first section is long enough to extend from the right travel device to the left travel device.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the first section with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for improved overall area of contact detection, thus improving overall usability with various objects located behind the vehicle, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum length until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2019/0211915 A1) in view of Swannie (US 2005/0104322 A1), and further in view of (DE 202019104353 U1).
For claim 3, Davis et al. modified as above discloses the work vehicle
wherein the at least one obstacle sensor comprises:
a first obstacle sensor 36 [configured to detect an obstacle with use of infrared rays or ultrasonic waves] (page 2, paragraph [0022] and [0024]), and [supported by the first section] (fig. 2); and
a left second obstacle sensor 24 and a right second obstacle sensor 24, [the left second obstacle sensor being supported by a portion of the first section on a left side of the first obstacle sensor, and the right second obstacle sensor being supported by a portion of the first section on a right side of the first obstacle sensor] (fig. 2), [sensors 24 are transceivers, preferably ultrasonic-type, but other standard sensors well known to a person skilled in the art may also be used] (page 2, paragraph [0022]); but does not explicitly disclose
each configured to detect an obstacle by coming into contact with the obstacle.
‘353 U1 discloses [coupling can be detected by sensors, e.g. with a contact sensor or similar on the trailer hitch] (page 6, paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the contact sensors of with the work vehicle of Davis et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a reliable real-time detection, thus improving overall monitoring of the sensor support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20130091962 – comprising a body connecting member; a support element; and a sensor unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacob D. Knutson whose telephone number is (571)270-5576. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)-272-6265. 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.
/JACOB D KNUTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611