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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses (claim 8).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the chassis being upfit to different truck configurations, does not reasonably provide enablement for the “or more” language whereby a vehicle is somehow upfit to be multiple types of purpose-built trucks. For example, the current claim language claims a refrigerated flatbed truck without any disclosure of how such a truck is made. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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.
Claims 11-13 are 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, both of these claims recite that the cab includes “one or more side steps” on the driver’s and passenger’s sides of the vehicle. This causes these claims (and their dependent claims) to be indefinite as it is unclear whether this recitation is referencing the already introduced “interior side steps” from claim 1 or if additional side steps are being introduced.
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 of this title, 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, 4-7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willison et al. (11,440,456) in view of Knudtson et al (US 2014/0054916).
Regarding claims 1-2, Willison discloses a commercial vehicle comprising:
a walk-in cab chassis (120) comprising:
a pair of chassis rails (1602, 1604; see e.g., Fig. 16) with a plurality of front wheels and a plurality of rear wheels (110; see Fig. 1) extending therefrom;
a cab (140) with interior side steps (1210, 1208; see Fig. 12 and Col. 18, lines 1843) that are accessible by a side door (232) , wherein the side door protect the interior side steps from weather elements (see Col. 18, lines 39-41);
a drivetrain (1700; see e.g., Fig. 17) configured to drive one or more of the plurality of front wheels and/or the plurality of rear wheels; and
wherein the walk-in cab chassis is configured as a medium duty truck (see Col. 14 providing that the vehicle is a medium duty truck that falls within at least truck class 3).
While Willison discloses that the vehicle includes a second side door (136, see top of Col. 10) that allows entry into the vehicle from the side opposite of the driver side door (232), it does not specifically disclose whether this passenger side door also has side steps.
Knudtson teaches another walk-in type medium class delivery vehicle (see ¶0002) having two sliding entry doors (104; see Figs. 1-4and ¶0077). The cab including interior steps (see Figs. 24-26) that are accessible by the passenger side door, wherein this side door protects these interior steps from weather elements (see e.g., Fig. 2 showing the passenger side door closing off access to the steps).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle of Willison to include sliding passenger-side entry steps behind the sliding door as taught by Knudtson to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing steps to ease entry into a vehicle) to known devices (e.g., step-in type vehicles having sliding doors at both sides of the vehicle) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a step-in vehicle that is easier to enter and exit from either side of the vehicle).
Regarding claims 4-6, Willison further discloses that the cab includes a driver’s side with a driver’s side wall (122), a passenger’s side with a passenger’s side wall (126), a front portion with a hood (154) extending upwardly to a windshield (152), a rear wall (364), and a roof (400), wherein a slidable driver’s side door (232) provides access to an interior (142) of the cab and the driver’s seat (710) from the driver’s side and a slidable passenger’s side door (136) provides access to the interior of the cab from the passenger’s side (see top of Col. 10).
Regarding claim 7, while Willison does not explicitly recite that the vehicle is drivable when the doors are open, it does not expressly note that the vehicle is undrivable when the doors are open and there is no direct interaction or connection between the doors and the drivetrain. Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to have the vehicle of the Willison combination to be drivable with its doors open to improve airflow and/or improve operator ingress/egress during delivery stops.
Regarding claim 14, Willson discloses that the vehicle is a medium-duty commercial truck having its cab that extends between the two opposing, substantially vertical side walls (122, 126; see e.g., Fig. 7). Willson, however, does not explicitly recite the width of the cab. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have the cab width of a commercial delivery truck to have a width of more than 88.5 inches, but less than the legal maximum since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art -See In re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The motivation for doing so would be increase the carrying capacity (size and/or weight) of a delivery vehicle while still being road-legal).
Regarding claim 15, Willison further discloses that the cab has an interior with a ceiling above a floor (708) to provide enough headroom within the interior for a drive to stand (see Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 16, Willison further discloses that the floor (708) within the interior of the cab is flat between its steps and throughout the cargo region (see e.g., Figs. 12-13, 23 and top of Col. 19).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willison in view of Knudtson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Snowden (2,125,205).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), while Willison discloses that the vehicle can have many different intended configurations and purposes (see e.g., Col. 9, lines 22-42), it does not explicitly recite that the chassis is up-fit any of the recited configurations.
Snowden teaches another walk-in type delivery vehicle that is configured as a refrigerated truck (see Col. 1, lines 1-14). At least one of the side doors (73) covers a step/floor pit (72; see Fig. 4 showing the door enclosing a portion of the step) that is below the main floor (20, see Figs. 1-2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle of the Willison combination to configure the interior cargo space as a refrigerated space as taught by Snowden to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., configuring a delivery truck to carry different materials) to known devices (e.g., step-in type vehicles that can be modified for a desired purpose, see Col. 9 of Willison) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a step-in vehicle that is suited to deliver items that need to be refrigerated).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willison in view of Knudtson as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Milton et al. (US 2019/0329635).
Regarding claim 8, Willison discloses that the two sliding doors include windows and that the passenger side wall (126) includes another window (130, see e.g., Fig. 21) behind the door window (134). The rear window being positioned that when the door is slid open, the two windows will at least be generally aligned. While Willison discloses that the passenger side has a rear window, it does not disclose that the region behind the driver’s window also has a window that aligns with the driver’s side window when that door is open.
Milton teaches another commercial vehicle having rearwardly sliding doors (e.g., driver side door 112) having a window (114; see Fig. 1), the side wall (106) having a window (136) that is aligned with the door window (114), such that when the door is open, the two windows are generally aligned (see track 120 showing how far the slidable door 112 travels to the rear).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle of the Willison combination to have a window behind the driver’s door as taught by Milton such that the sliding driver door’s window will align with the rear window to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional windows in a vehicle’s side walls) to known devices (e.g., step-in type vehicles having windowed sliding doors at both sides of the vehicle) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a step-in vehicle that has improved lighting/visibility in its cargo area when the door is open).
Regarding claim 9, Willison does not disclose that the passenger door has a lower window.
Knudtson teaches that the sliding passenger door (104; see Fig. 1) can include both a traditional upper window (115) and a lower window (114) to grant additional visibility to the driver.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle of the Willison combination to have a lower passenger window as taught by Knudtson to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional windows in a vehicle to improve visibility) to known devices (e.g., step-in type vehicles having windowed sliding doors) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a step-in vehicle that has improved lighting/visibility to improve the driver’s situational awareness).
Regarding claim 10¸as discussed above with respect to claim 8, Willison discloses that the vehicle has rear passenger side window that aligns with the sliding passenger door window when opened.
Regarding claims 11-12 (as best understood)¸as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Willison combination provides for the two sliding doors covering the two sets of steps on either side of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above with respect to claim 9, the Willison combination provides for a lower passenger window that would improve driver visibility by allowing the driver to see objects immediately adjacent to the passenger side of the vehicle.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willison in view of Knudtson as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wires (11,338,859).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above, Willison discloses that the vehicle cab can be configured to suit a variety of roles (see Col. 9, lines 22-42), it does not explicitly recite that the cab is has a back row of seats in the cabin.
Wires teaches another medium-duty commercial vehicle (see Col. 10, lines 4-17) having a multi-configurable cab/chassis (see Fig. 1), including a commercial vehicle (140) having a second row of seats sufficient to seat six passengers (see Col. 6, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle of the Willison combination to include a row of rear seats within the cabin as taught by Wires to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional seating for transporting additional workers in a commercial vehicle) to known devices (e.g., multi-role step-in type vehicles having an open floor behind the driver’s seat) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a step-in vehicle that has improved personnel transporting capability).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willison in view of Knudtson and Wires as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mueller et al. (US 2015/0084360).
Regarding claims 18-20, Willison, as modified by Mueller, provides for a vehicle having a row of additional seats, but does not disclose whether those seats are foldable or have storage units.
Mueller teaches the well-known expedient of placing at least one storage units (32) beneath a rear seat assembly having a plurality of vertically pivoting seat bottoms (48, 50; see Figs. 3-4) where the storage units are along the rear wall (46) of the vehicle cabin.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the vehicle of the Willison combination to include storage under the row of rear seats within the cabin as taught by Mueller to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional interior storage within a commercial vehicle) to known devices (e.g., multi-role step-in type vehicles having rear seats) ready for improvement to obtain predictable results (e.g., a step-in vehicle that has improved cargo/stowage capability).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618