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 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 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the drainage hole is located closer to an outside portion of the front ditch in the lateral direction". It is unclear the drainage hole is located closer than what?
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zaremba et al. (US 11407451 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Zaremba discloses a passenger transport vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: a body (16 in Fig. 1); and a roof (canopy 62 in Fig. 1) on which a drainage gutter (102/106/110 in Fig. 6) and a drainage hole (114 in Fig. 6) are formed, the roof being supported above the body (Fig. 1, supported by struts) and including an upper surface (Fig. 2) and a lower surface (Fig. 3), the drainage gutter including a front portion (Fig. 6, towards front of the vehicle) in front of a center (Fig. 6) of the upper surface in a forward and backward direction, the drainage hole being formed on the front portion (Fig. 6, 114 are located toward the front) to reach the lower surface (Col. 10 lines 44-49, water can flow through the hole to reach the bottom surface of the roof) from a bottom (Col. 10 lines 19-21, drainage hole 114 is at the bottom of the channel/gutter) of the drainage gutter.
Regarding claim 2, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the drainage gutter includes a forward-backward ditch (106 or 102 in Fig. 6) extending in the forward and backward direction on the upper surface (Fig. 6), the drainage hole is at a front of the forward-backward ditch (Fig. 6, at the front 106A/102A), and the forward-backward ditch is of a shape falling frontward (Col. 9 lines 9-15 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the drainage gutter includes a front ditch (110 in Fig. 6) extending in a lateral direction at a front side of the upper surface (Fig. 6), and a forward-backward ditch (106 or 102 in Fig. 6) extending in the forward and backward direction on the upper surface (Fig. 6), the front ditch being connected to the forward-backward ditch (Fig. 6), and the drainage hole is at an intersection (Fig. 6, at intersection of the lateral end of the front ditch and the forward end of the forward-backward ditch) between the front ditch and the forward-backward ditch.
Regarding claim 6, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising a drainage channel (Fig. 1 and 4, channel 90), extending from the drainage hole (Fig. 4, from bottom 118 of the drainage hole) to a lower portion in the body (Fig. 1, extends down to the bottom portion of the vehicle body).
Regarding claim 7, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 6, further comprising a front strut (70C in Fig. 4) with a tubular shape (Fig. 4 and 13, with internal space 90), the front strut coupling the body to the roof (Fig. 1), wherein an inner surface of the front strut is a wall (Fig. 13, internal wall that delimits channel space 90) of the drainage channel.
Regarding claim 8, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 6, wherein an upper end of the drainage channel is connected to the drainage hole(Fig. 4, connects at 86), and the upper end is inclined with respect to a vertical direction (Fig. 4, it is horizontal therefore incline with respect to the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 9, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the drainage channel includes a bent channel (Fig. 4, 90 is shown to bent from horizontal to vertical at the top portion, and bent at the lower portion from vertical to diagonal).
Regarding claim 13, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the drainage gutter includes a forward-backward ditch (106 or 102 in Fig. 6) extending in the forward and backward direction on the upper surface (Fig. 6), the drainage hole is at a front of the forward-backward ditch (Fig. 6, at the front 106A/102A), the forward-backward ditch is of a shape falling frontward (Col. 9 lines 9-15 and Fig. 1), and an upper portion of the drainage channel extends forward and downward (see annotated Fig. 1) from the drainage hole.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1 from Zaremba
Regarding claim 14, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a front portion of the roof is lower than a rear portion of the roof (Fig. 1 and Col. 9 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 15, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the roof has a forward-tilted shape (Fig. 1 and Col. 9 lines 6-9) or a horizontal shape when the roof is observed along a lateral direction.
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaremba as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Hanson et al. (US 20090108636 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the drainage gutter includes a front ditch (Zaremba, 110 in Fig. 6) extending in a lateral direction at a front side of the upper surface (Zaremba, Fig. 6), the drainage hole is located closer to an outside portion of the front ditch in the lateral direction (Zaremba, Fig. 6, 114 at two laterally outer end portions of the ditch 110).
Zaremba fails to disclose the front ditch is of a shape falling outward in the lateral direction.
Hanson teaches the front ditch is of a shape falling outward in the lateral direction (Hanson, paragraph 23, center of the channel is higher than the opposing end sections).
Hanson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of golf cart canopy as Zaremba.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Zaremba to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with a reasonable expectation of success and have the front ditch shaped to falling outward in the lateral direction. Doing so allows water in the front ditch to flow properly towards the drainage hole without creating water accumulation in the ditch.
Regarding claim 5, Zaremba discloses the passenger transport vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the forward-backward ditch is at each of right and left ends of the upper surface (Zaremba, Fig. 6, 102 and 106).
Zaremba fails to disclose the front ditch is of a shape falling from an intermediate portion in the lateral direction toward outside right and left portions in the lateral direction.
Hanson teaches the front ditch is of a shape falling from an intermediate portion in the lateral direction toward outside right and left portions in the lateral direction (Hanson, paragraph 23, center of the channel is higher than the opposing end sections).
Hanson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of golf cart canopy as Zaremba.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Zaremba to incorporate the teachings of Hanson with a reasonable expectation of success and have the front ditch shaped to falling from an intermediate portion in the lateral direction toward outside right and left portions in the lateral direction. Doing so allows water in the front ditch to flow properly towards the drainage hole without creating water accumulation in the ditch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to the drainage channel includes a lower opening in space accommodating wheels, and the body includes a panel covering behind the lower opening as claimed in claim 10. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Fujihara et al. (US 20050116517 A1) teaches a panel 94 in Fig. 1 (fender where part of the fender panel is behind the wheel). However, a combination of Zaremba in view of Fujihara would not be obvious to result in a panel covering behind the lower opening (Zaremba, 98/94 in Fig. 4) as the panel is a wheel fender which would more likely to be covering around the wheel of Zaremba which means the panel would be in front of the lower opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle canopy drainage systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612