DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 7 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 7 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.
The straps 60, 62 are spaced longitudinally as seen in figure 2 not laterally.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9 does not limit claim 8 listing the same limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 14,15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over JP6-50915U in view of Russ, US 6202394, cited by applicant, both previously presented in view of Job, US 5882063.
JP6-50915U has canopy 5 with top surface, bottom surface and peripheral rim at edges shown in figure 1 and fan assembly 12/8 in that figure and mounted to the bottom surface at 9, figure 2. JP6-50915U has a rectangular frame 6 in lateral cross section in figure 1, mounted to the bottom surface at 9 and comprising laterally spaced legs as shown in figure 2 and longitudinally spaced legs as shown at 8 in figure 1..
JP6-50915U has vertical pillars 3, but no cross member to complete a roll-over structure, a known detail in this art as evidenced by the patent to Russ at 33/24, with the fan assembly 12/8 of JP6-50915U or Russ at 15/16 coupled to the roll-over structure indirectly, claim 10, via the canopy 10 of Russ or canopy 5 of JP6-50915U mounted to the horizontal cross member 24.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in JP6-50915U the roll over structure of Russ in order to protect the operator.
The two references above lack the coupling of the canopy to the roll-over structure taught by Job at 63,64. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in the combination above with a canopy coupling to a horizontal bar as taught by Job in order to secure the assembly, claims 1 and 8.
Claim 6, the fan of JP6-50915U draws in air at 17 above the fan and projects below at 18, figure 1.
Claim 8, 9 the fan of JP6-50915U is coupled to the roll structure via the intervening canopy and the canopy is secured to the frame 6 at 9.
Claim 10, the fan is coupled to the roll-over structure via the intermediate canopy.
Claim 14 the canopy of JP6-50915U extends downward and is flared as seen at figures 1-2.
Claim 15, the canopy of Job is fiberglass, with molding being a method not given patentable weight in a product claim, MPEP 2113, however the canopy of Job is capable of being molded.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation with “fan assembly coupled to a roll-over protective structure” is repeated. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art of record lacks the claimed fan straps mounted to the bottom surface of the canopy, claim 7, providing support for the canopy and the canopy mounted to the horizontal cross member of the roll structure by U-bolt assemblies. The prior art of Hancock uses straps mounted to the canopy edge and the fan assembly of JP6-50915U is mounted at a distance away from the roll structure precluding U-bolt mounting thereto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Please see the rejection above, deemed fully responsive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS H PEDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6667. The examiner can normally be reached 4:30-1pm.
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 on 571-270-5550. 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.
/Dennis H Pedder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
DENNIS H. PEDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3612
DHP
10/6/2025