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 .
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.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 10/14/2022.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14 & 17 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.
The term “preferably” in claims 4, 7 & 10 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner makes note that their interpretation of the term “preferably” as used in the aforementioned claims is taken as “at least up to 90 degrees.”
The term “in particular” in claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 14 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “in particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 13are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Klein (US 2017/0088103) herein referred to as Klein, in view of Martin Buschmann et al (US 2022/0219573) herein referred to as Buschmann.
Regarding Claim 1: Klein teaches a construction machine (see Figs.1a & 1b, 2), in particular a roller or road finisher, for working a ground in a working direction (A) comprising: a machine frame (2); an operator platform (4) at least one travel unit (3); and an operating unit, the operating unit comprising: an operator's seat (6) for an operator of the construction machine; an operating console (5) with operating elements for controlling the construction machine by the operator; a support structure (22) on which both the operator's seat (6) and the operating console (5) are arranged; and a transverse guide with at least one guide rail (7), wherein the support structure (22) is movably mounted on the at least one guide rail (7), so that the support structure together with the operator's seat and the operating console are configured to be movable along the at least one guide rail (7), wherein the support structure is configured such that it can be swiveled together with the operator's seat and the operating console about a swivel axis running in particular in vertical direction (see Fig. 3c).
Klein fails to teach wherein the swivel axis being arranged in the working direction in front of the operator's seat.
Buschmann teaches a pavement construction machine (as seen in Figs. 1 & 2) wherein, the machine includes a control seat console (5) which is configured to swivel about a vertical axis (S/25), a console bottom (17) on which both the operator seat (15) and control panel (19) are arranged. Buschmann further teaches (see Figs. 1 & 2) wherein the vertical swivel axis (S/25) is arranged in the working direction in front of the operator’s seat (15) and console (19).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the swivel connection of the secondary reference Buschmann into that of the primary reference Klein. Buschmann asserts (see paragraph 0015) wherein the seat console (5) can be swiveled including the control panel, and the operator on the seat can still easily reach the operational controls to control the machine.
Regarding Claim 2: Klein teaches the construction machine according to claim 1. Klein further teaches wherein the swivel axis and the operating console are arranged on the supporting structure (22) in the working direction (A). Klein does not teach wherein the swivel axis is located in front of the operator's seat.
In light of the modification made in relation to Claim 1, Buschmann further teaches (see Figs. 1 & 2) wherein the swivel axis (S/25) and operating console (19) are arranged on the supporting structure in the working direction in front of the operator's seat.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the swivel connection of the secondary reference Buschmann into that of the primary reference Klein. This incorporation would provide the operator with a constant view and reach of the control console since the console and seat would be swiveling as a single unit and be constantly aligned with each other. This modification would permit the operator to stop the machine quicker in case of an emergency situation or operating issue with the machine.
Regarding Claim 3: Klein teaches the construction machine according to claim 1. Klein does not teach wherein the support structure is configured to swivel together with the operator's seat and the operating console exclusively about the swivel axis.
In light of the modification made in relation to Claim 1, Buschmann further teaches (See Figs. 1 & 2) wherein the support structure (17-console bottom) is configured to swivel together with the operator's seat (15) and the operating console (19) exclusively about the swivel axis (S/25) where it is mounted to a front side (21) of the control panel (1). This swivel operation is in addition to the swivel operation of seat console (5).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the swivel connection of the secondary reference Buschmann into that of the primary reference Klein.
This incorporation would provide the operator with a constant view and reach of the control console since the console and seat would be swiveling as a single unit and be constantly aligned with each other. Further, this modification would permit the operator to stop the machine quicker in case of an emergency situation or operating issue with the machine.
Regarding Claim 5: Klein and Buschmann teach the machine according to claim 1. Klein further teaches (see Figs. 2-3C) wherein a support slide (see both annotated figures below) is provided, on which the support structure (22) is mounted, and that the support slide is movably mounted on the transverse guide (7), so that the support slide is configured such that it can be moved along the transverse guide, in particular along the guide rail, together with the support structure, the operator's seat and the operating console.
Klein fails to teach wherein the swivel axis is arranged in the working direction in front of the operator's seat.
However, Buschmann teaches a support structure (17) can be swiveled about the swivel axis (S/25) together with the operator's seat (15) and the control panel (19).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the swivel axis of Buschmann into the lateral sliding structure of Klein to provide the machine operator with increased movement flexibility while seated in the operator seat during operation of the machine.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
273
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10: Klein teaches the construction machine of claim 9. Klein does not teach wherein the operator seat can adjust transversely beyond the outer dimension of the operator platform (4).
However, Buschmann does teach wherein the operator seat (15) can pivot about the axis (S/25) to a position outside of the outer edge (27) of the control platform (1). As Klein (Fig. 1) shows, a pivot of 40 degrees places the operator far beyond the 5 cm minimum distance outside of the control platform (1).
Regarding Claim 11: Klein teaches the construction machine according to claim 1. Klein further teaches (see Figs. 1a, 1b & 2) that the operator seat (6) is adjustable transversely to the working direction (A) away from a central longitudinal axis of the construction machine (1).
Klein fails to teach wherein the operator platform (4) comprises at least one operator platform door, wherein the operator platform door has an outer side with which it forms an outer contour of the construction machine in a closed state, and that the operator's seat (6) can be adjusted transversely to beyond the outer contour of the construction machine (1) by swiveling the operator's seat about the swivel axis when the operator platform door is open.
However, Buschmann teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein, a wall structure (23, 23a & 23b) which serves as a fall protection for the operator is securely attached to the exterior side of the operator seat (15) and which swivels about the swivel axis (S/25) in conjunction with the operator seat (15). This swivel function of the wall structure (23, 23a & 23b) allows it to act like a door to control platform (1). Further Buschmann teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein, the operator's seat (15) can be swiveled away from a central longitudinal axis of the construction machine to beyond outer edge (27) of said machine by swiveling the operator's seat about the swivel axis (S/25). This action will also cause the wall structure to move beyond the outer edge (27) which allows entry/exit to the control platform by the construction machine operator.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support structure (22) of Klein to incorporate the swivel connection (S/25) of Buschmann to allow the operator seat (6) of Klein to extend beyond the operator platform (4) to allow the operator better visibility while operating the construction machine (1) in areas of limited space and obstacles.
Regarding Claim 13: Klein and Buschmann teach the construction machine of claim 1. Buschmann further teaches (see Figs. 1 & 2) wherein the door (23 & 23a-b) opens from the rotation axis (S/25) and closes to the rotation axis (S/25). Further the door opening point is shown (see Fig. 2) to be at least as forward as the axis rotation point (S/25). It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art and prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the door and platform opening/rotational configuration of Buschmann to that of Klein, to provide a system of fall protection for the operator (Buschmann paragraph 0030).
Claims 4, 6-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Klein and Buschmann as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Ingo Herzberg (U.S. 9,156,498) herein referred to as Herzberg-498.
Regarding Claim 4: Klein and Buschmann teach the construction machine according to claim 1. Neither Klein or Buschmann teaches wherein the forward transverse guide has, in addition to the guide rail, a further mounting rail which is spaced from the guide rail in vertical direction and preferably runs parallel to the guide rail, and that the support structure is movably mounted on the guide rail and the mounting rail.
However, Herzberg-498 does teach (see Fig. 3 & Column 3=>Lines 9-11) wherein the forward transverse guide has, in addition to the guide rail (6), a further mounting rail (7) which is spaced from the guide rail in vertical direction and preferably runs parallel to the guide rail, and that the support structure (2) is movably mounted on the guide rail and the mounting rail.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the dual vertical rail structure of Herzberg to that of Klein's fore & aft transverse rail structure.
Herzberg-498's upper/lower transverse rail structure allows the control panel bearing rails such that one bearing rail being embodied such that forces can be absorbed by the roller in two different orthogonal directions with respect to the extension direction of the rail, and the other bearing rail is embodied such that forces can be absorbed only in one direction orthogonal to the bearing rail. Thereby, the one bearing rail is embodied as a fixed bearing rail, while the other bearing rail is embodied as a floating bearing rail.
Regarding Claim 6: Klein and Buschmann teach the construction machine according to claim 1 and wherein the support structure is mounted exclusively on the transverse guide. Klein and Buschmann do not teach wherein the support structure is mounted on the transverse guide exclusively in the working direction in front of the operator's seat.
In light of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Herzberg teaches a road finishing machine (see Fig. 1) with a control panel (1) that is mounted exclusively on the control panel bearing element (2) that comprises of upper (6) and lower (7) bearing rails that are aligned in a transverse manner in front of the control panel in the longitudinal direction (L). The control panel (1) uses a control panel slide (5) to attach to the control panel bearing element (2).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art of the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date to modify the control panel (1) of Herzberg to incorporate a seat support structure comprising an operator seat that would be attached to the control panel slide (5) and move laterally in unison with the control panel (1). This modification would save costs as only one operator seat would be required and the operator would not need to switch seats during operation (see paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 7: Klein teaches the construction machine according to claim 1. Klein further teaches wherein the support structure is mounted on the guide rail (7), operator seat (6) can swivel about (see Figs. 3a-3c) its mounting axis which is independent of any rotational movement of the support structure (22). Klein does not teach wherein the support structure (22) can swivel about a swivel axis such that the operator's seat can be swiveled between a straight-ahead position and a side position, wherein a vertical plane through the seat index point and the swivel axis in the straight-ahead position and a vertical plane through the seat index point and the swivel axis in the side position form a swivel angle, and wherein the swivel angle is in particular at least up to 40°, preferably at least up to 50° or at least up to 60° or at least up to 70° or at least up to 80° or at least up to 90°. Further, Klein (see Fig. 2) does not identify the Seat Index Point (SIP) for the operator seat (6).
The console is configured to swivel in accordance with the design as taught by Buschmann. Additionally, in light of such a modification, Buschmann further teaches that the swivel design is configured to extend between 0 and 45 degrees, but may extend as far as 90 degrees (Paragraph 0013).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support structure (22) of Klein to incorporate the swivel connection of Buschmann to simplify construction of the operator seat to delete the need for a separate swivel function for the operator seat. Additionally, the swivel operation is intended to facilitate entry/exit of the machine operator, as such the swivel degree range would be comparable to that of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 8: Klein teaches the construction machine according to claims 6 & 7. Klein further teaches (see Fig. 3c) wherein the vertical plane through the seat index point (not identified) and the console (5) is oriented parallel to the working direction (A) when the operator's seat (6) is in the straight-ahead position.
Regarding Claim 17: Klein teaches the machine of claim 1 and further teaches wherein, it has at least one of the following features: it has an additional armrest console (see Figs. 1 & 3a-3c) with operating elements for the operator, in particular on the operator's seat; it has an electronic steering system for the construction machine (electronic steering not implicitly identified, Fig. 1 discloses a joystick on the right arm seat mounted control console), in particular comprising a joystick (see Figs. 1 & 3a-3c) ; the operator's seat is height-adjustable (paragraph 0038); the operator's seat is rotatable (paragraph 0039); the support structure (22) comprises a seat support extending in a radial direction of the swivel axis; the support structure comprises a vertically extending console support (5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Klein and Buschmann as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Holger Vetterlein (DE 19813474) herein referred to as Vetterlein.
Regarding Claim 9: Klein and Buschmann teach the construction machine according to claim 1. Klein further teaches (see Figs. 2-3C) wherein the guide rail (7) runs transversely to the working direction (A) and, at its ends spaced apart transversely to the working direction (A) and in each case defines an end position (12) for the operator's seat. Buschmann further teaches wherein these end positions the operator's seat (15) can be swiveled away from the guide rail (Buschmann does not have a guide rail, instead has a front end (21) where the swivel axis (S/25) is mounted to) about the swivel axis (S/25). Buschmann also does not identify where the seat index point lies behind the transverse guide.
However, Vetterlein teaches (see Fig. 3) that the seat index point for seat (34) lies behind the transverse guide (25) in a direction transverse to the working direction.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the swivel function of the operator seat of Buschmann and the front-end structure (21) of Vetterlein to that of the guide rail (7) of Klein to increase the operator seat adjustment possibilities for the machine operator.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Klein and Buschmann as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Joachim Ponstein (US 20200392678) herein referred to as Ponstein.
Regarding Claim 14: Klein teaches the machine of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a horizontally extending swivel floor is provided which can be adjusted, in particular swiveled, between a stowed position, in which the swivel floor is slid in underneath an operator platform floor, and a working position, in which the swivel floor extends the operator platform floor transversely to the working direction, in particular as far as the open operator platform door.
However, Buschmann teaches, wherein a horizontally extending swivel floor (17) is provided which can swivel outside of the machine edge (27) and swivel into a position that aligns the operators seat (15) parallel to the direction of travel (F) and a working position, in which the swivel floor extends the operator platform floor transversely to the working direction, in particular as far as the open operator platform door (see paragraph 0013).
Buschmann does not teach wherein the swivel floor (17) can slide underneath the operator platform floor (9) when the seat is aligned parallel to the direction of travel.
Additionally, Ponstein teaches a ground milling machine (see Fig. 1) which, (see Figs. 2A & 2B) shows a swivel floor (15) that rotates about the pivot axis (S) is under the main floor plate (14) when in the stowed position (paragraph 0044 & Fig. 2A).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seat support of Klein to incorporate the swivel function of Buschmann with the swivel floor stowing operation of Ponstein to prevent obstruction (see paragraph 0012) of the operator's movement on the main floor plate (14).
Regarding Claim 15: Klein teaches the construction machine according to claim 1. Klein does not teach wherein the movement of a swivel floor between the stowed position and the working position is coupled to the movement of the operator platform door and/or the support structure, so that the swivel floor is automatically moved along with the operator platform door or the support structure.
However, Buschmann teaches (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the movement of the swivel floor (17-console bottom) between the stowed position and the working position is coupled to the movement of the operator platform door (23) and/or the support structure (17-console bottom), so that the swivel floor is automatically moved along with the operator platform door (23) or the support structure (17-console bottom).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the swivel connection of the secondary reference Buschmann into that of the primary reference Klein. This incorporation would provide the operator with a constant view and reach of the control console since the console and seat would be swiveling as a single unit and be constantly aligned with each other. Further, this modification would permit the operator to stop the machine quicker in case of an emergency situation or operating issue with the machine.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Klein and Buschmann as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Karl R. Wolter (U.S. 3,381,699) herein referred to as Wolter.
Regarding Claim 12: Klein and Buschmann teach the construction machine of claim 1. Klein and Bachmann do not teach wherein a coupling device is provided which automatically opens and/or closes the operator platform door when the operator's seat is swiveled about the swivel axis next to the operator platform door.
However, Wolter teaches (see Figs. 1-3) a shunting tractor with an operator seat (20) and cab door (22) wherein when the operator seat is swiveled 180 degrees (to a second position) with respect to the axis of rotation of the support plate (76), the cab door (22) opens to allow the operator ready access onto the platform (42). The cab door stays in the open position until the operator seat is returned to the driving position (first position) facing the forward direction (not identified on the drawings). The coupling system (see Figs. 6 &7) is of a pneumatic type and is shared with the air services the shunting tractor provides to the trailers to be shunted.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coupled operator seat swivel and automatic cab door opening of Wolter to that of Klein to provide the operator with a time saving option for ready/easier/quicker access to the outside of the road finishing machine (Wolter Column 1=> Lines 25-31).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Klein and Buschmann as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Ingo Herzberg (US 20130270888) herein referred to as Herzberg-888.
Regarding Claim 16: Klein and Buschmann teach the construction machine of claim 1. Neither Klein or Buschmann teach wherein a locking device is provided to lock the support structure with the operator's seat and the operating console in different positions along the transverse guide and/or about the swivel axis. However, Herzberg-888 does teach (see Figs. 1-4 and paragraph 0015) wherein a locking device (V) can be actuated by pivot lever (H).
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seat structure of Klein to incorporate the locking function of Herzberg-888 to allow the operator seat to be locked in positions A1 or A2 as taught by herzberg-888. This incorporation would provide the operator/operator seat a secured seat working positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571) 272-0547. 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.
/K.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights