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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 35-41 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. Claim 35 recites the limitation “the supplemental windshield” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 41, it is unclear if the “a supplemental windshield” is the same or different from the “ supplemental windshield ” recited in parent claim 35. For examination purposes, it is assumed that it refers to the same supplemental windshield recited in the parent claim. Claim(s) 36- 40 is/are also considered to be indefinite since it/they depend(s) from the indefinite parent claim(s). 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. Claim(s) 1 , 3, 6, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piroumoff US 2098357 in view of Jozefczak US4700980 and Hudepohl et al. US9556664 . Regarding independent claim 1 , Piroumoff discloses, in Figures 1-5, A heavy-duty truck ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) , comprising: a cabin ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) ; a window ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) having an upper edge region ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) and a lower edge region ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) . Piroumoff does not disclose at least one hinge that rotatably couples the upper edge region of the window to the cabin to move between a closed position and an open position; and at least one motor-driven actuator coupled to the lower edge region of the window such that actuation of the motor-driven actuator in a first direction moves the lower edge region of the window away from the cabin, thereby opening the window to the open position, and actuation of the motor-driven actuator in a second direction opposite to the first direction moves the lower edge region of the window toward the cabin, thereby closing the window to the closed position. Jozefczak teaches a window pane 34 that is mounted by a pair of hinges 36 and 38 at the top of the window pane ( Jozefczak ; Fig. 1-2; a pair of top/upper hinges 36 and 38 for window pane 34 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper edge region of the window as taught by Piroumoff to comprise a pair of upper window hinges as taught Jozefczak for the purpose of allowing the window to open and close and allowing for air circulation within the truck, and/or for communicating with a pedestrian, and/or for allowing the driver to adjust the sideview mirror, and/or to pass objects/items with a pedestrian without opening the door . Modified Piroumoff does not disclose at least one motor-driven actuator coupled to the lower edge region of the window such that actuation of the motor-driven actuator in a first direction moves the lower edge region of the window away from the cabin, thereby opening the window to the open position, and actuation of the motor-driven actuator in a second direction opposite to the first direction moves the lower edge region of the window toward the cabin, thereby closing the window to the closed position. Hudepohl teaches a tilting window 22 that is powered by a motorized tilting window operator 10 that comprises a motorized drive unit 40 to open/close the tilting window 22 ( Hudepohl ; Fig. 1 and 7; tilting window 22; motorized tilting window operator 10 that comprises a motorized drive unit 40; col. 11:16-21 operate in forward/reverse positions to open/close the tilting window 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the window as taught by Modified Piroumoff to be configured to rotate between an open position and a closed position by a motor-driven actuator as taught by Hudepohl for the purpose of providing a power-assisted means for the driver to open/close the window . Regarding claim 3 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 1 wherein the hinge ( Jozefczak ; Fig. 1-2; a pair of top/upper hinges 36 and 38 for window pane 34) rotatably couples the upper edge region of the window to a window frame secured to a window opening of the cabin ( Piroumoff ; Fig. 1) . Regarding claim 6, Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and wherein: the window, the at least one hinge ( Jozefczak ; Fig. 1-2; a pair of top/upper hinges 36 and 38 for window pane 34) and the at least one motor-driven actuator ( Hudepohl ; Fig. 1 and 7; motorized tilting window operator 10 that comprises a motorized drive unit 40; col. 11:16-21 operate in forward/reverse positions to open/close the tilting window 22) form a first window assembly of the heavy-duty truck ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above). Modified Piroumoff does not teach wherein the heavy-duty truck further comprises a second window assembly , the first window assembly is on a first side of the cabin and the second window assembly is on a second side of the cabin opposite to the first side of the cabin, and the second window assembly is a mirror image of the first window assembly. However, in the case of In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) , it was determined that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts; In re Harza ; “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second side of the cabin as taught by Modified Piroumoff to comprise a second window assembly and the second window assembly is a mirror image of the first window assembly since doing so is an example of a mere duplication of parts in which “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts; In re Harza ; “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”). Similar to the obviousness of duplicating a single rib of a web in the In re Harza case law, it would have been obvious to duplicate the window assembly to yield a line-of-sight on the right/ passenger-side for the driver to monitor the environment on the right/ passenger-side with no unexpected results. The purpose for making the modification is for the purpose of improving line of sight and visibility. Regarding claim 10 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 1 wherein the heavy-duty truck is a center-drive truck ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 1 wherein the cabin is devoid of roll-down windows that translate substantially vertically to open ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above ). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piroumoff US2098357 in view of Jozefczak US4700980 and Hudepohl et al. US9556664 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai US20070095633 . Regarding claim 9 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, but does not teach wherein: the first window assembly is configured to be actuated, independently of the second window assembly, by a first electrical signal initiated by a human occupant of the cabin interacting with a human-machine interface inside the cabin; and the second window assembly is configured to be actuated, independently of the first window assembly, by a second electrical signal initiated by the human occupant of the cabin interacting with the human-machine interface inside the cabin. Sakai teaches a multifunction switch SW1 for controlling the drivers side window and/or the assistant/passenger side window ( Sakai ; [0019] “ The multifunction switch SW1 can be used for … selecting all power windows, one of windows on driver's seat side, assistant's seat side, rear left seat side and rear right seat side in the power window control mode ” ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the truck as taught by Modified Piroumoff to include user-control and independent operation of each window as taught by Sakai for the purpose of providing “ a simple and easy-to-operate switch panel ” for the driver ( Sakai ; abstract). Claim(s) 12 , 16-17, 35-36, and 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piroumoff US2098357 in view of Rausch et al. US20230311625 and Koizumi et al. US7651158. Regarding independent claim 1 2 , Piroumoff discloses, in Figures 1-5, A heavy-duty truck ( Piroumoff ; Fig. 1-5) , comprising: a cabin ( Piroumoff ; the front portion of the truck that houses driver’s seat 33) including a door ( Piroumoff ; sliding door 35) having a door window ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) ; at least one windshield ( Piroumoff ; windshield 7) adjacent to and forward of the door window. Piroumoff does not disclose a lower window forward of the door window and below the windshield and spaced apart from the door window and the windshield. Rausch teaches a peep window 538 for the purpose of enhancing line of sight so that the occupant/operator/driver is able to see objects below and adjacent the cab 40 more easily such as adjacent cars, pedestrians, and nearby obstacles as well as to help with maneuvering for turns and tight spaces . The peep window 538 is positioned below the windshield 530 and spaced apart from the door main side window 536 and the windshield 530 as shown in Fig. 1, 14, and 17. ( Rausch ; Fig. 1, 14, and 17; peep window 538; [0083] “ The peep windows 538 provide an enhanced line of sight out of the lower portion of the doors 44 relative to aligned double-pane peep windows. Therefore, the occupant/operator is able to see objects below and adjacent the cab 40 more easily such as adjacent cars, refuse containers, pedestrians, nearby obstacles, and the like (e.g., making turning maneuvers and maneuvering in tight spaces easier). ”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the truck as taught by Piroumoff to include a lower peep window that is positioned lower than the windshield and spaced apart from the door window and the windshield as taught by Rausch for the purpose of improving line of sight and visibility ( Rausch ; peep window 538; [0083] “The peep windows 538 provide an enhanced line of sight out of the lower portion of the doors 44 relative to aligned double-pane peep windows. Therefore, the occupant/operator is able to see objects below and adjacent the cab 40 more easily such as adjacent cars, refuse containers, pedestrians, nearby obstacles, and the like (e.g., making turning maneuvers and maneuvering in tight spaces easier).”) . Modified Piroumoff does not teach a lower window forward of the door window. Koizumi teaches a sub-window plate 30 (e.g. front quarter window) that is positioned forward of a side door window glass 50 of a side door 5 for the purpose of providing improved lateral visibility for the driver ( Koizumi ; Fig. 2; sub-window plate 30 that is positioned forward of a side door window glass 50 of a side door 5 ; col. 1:12-15 providing a sub-window to improve lateral visibility for a driver ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the lower window relative to the door window as taught by Modified Piroumoff so that the lower window is located forward of the door window as taught by Koizumi for the purpose of improving lateral visibility for the driver ( Koizumi ; col. 1:12-15 providing a sub-window to improve lateral visibility for a driver) . Thus, the resulting Modified Piroumoff teaches the relative location of the lower window to yield: a lower window forward of the door window and below the windshield and spaced apart from the door window and the windshield . Regarding claim 1 6 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 15 wherein the door window ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above ) is stationary and not configured to open or close relative to the door, and wherein the at least one windshield ( Piroumoff ; windshield 7) is stationary and is not configured to open or close. Regarding claim 1 7 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above , and The heavy-duty truck of claim 12 wherein ; at least a portion of the lower window is located lower than at least a portion of a hood ( Piroumoff ; cowl hood 14) of the heavy-duty truck (see the labeled figure below) ; at least a majority of the lower window by surface area is located at an elevation that is between a lower end of the windshield and an upper end of a fender of the heavy-duty truck (see the labeled figure below) ; and at least a majority of the lower window is located along a fore -aft axis at a location that is between a rear end of drive wheels of the heavy-duty truck and a headlight of the heavy-duty truck (see the labeled figure below) . Regarding independent claim 35 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 12 , and A heavy-duty truck ( Piroumoff ; Fig. 1-5) , comprising: a cabin ( Piroumoff ; the front portion of the truck that houses driver’s seat 33) including a door ( Piroumoff ; sliding door 35) having a door window ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) ; at least one windshield ( Piroumoff ; windshield 7) adjacent to and forward of the door window; and a lower window ( Rausch ; Fig. 1, 14, and 17; peep window 538 ) forward ( Koizumi ; Fig. 2; sub-window plate 30 that is positioned forward of a side door window glass 50 of a side door 5) of the door window and below the supplemental windshield ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) ; wherein, when the heavy-duty truck is on a roadway surface and a driver is seated in the cabin in a driving position, a portion of the roadway surface visible to the driver includes an island of visibility that includes a portion of the roadway surface visible through the lower window ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure below) . Regarding claim 36 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above , and wherein: the door window and the lower window are on a first side of the cabin ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above ) . Modified Piroumoff does not teach the heavy-duty truck further comprises another door window and another lower window that are arranged in a mirror-image configuration on a second side of the cabin opposite to the first side of the cabin . However, in the case of In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) , it was determined that “ mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. ” (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts ; In re Harza ; “ mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. ”) . I t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second side of the cabin as taught by Modified Piroumoff to comprise another door window and another lower window since doing so is an example of a mere duplication of parts in which “ mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. ” (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) Duplication of Parts ; In re Harza ; “ mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. ”). Similar to the obviousness of duplicating a single rib of a web in the In re Harza case law, it would have been obvious to duplicate the door window and the lower window to yield a line-of-sight on the right/ passenger-side for the driver to monitor the environment on the right/ passenger-side with no unexpected results. The purpose for making the modification is for the purpose of improving line of sight and visibility (Rausch; peep window 538; [0083] “The peep windows 538 provide an enhanced line of sight out of the lower portion of the doors 44 relative to aligned double-pane peep windows. Therefore, the occupant/operator is able to see objects below and adjacent the cab 40 more easily such as adjacent cars, refuse containers, pedestrians, nearby obstacles, and the like (e.g., making turning maneuvers and maneuvering in tight spaces easier).”). Regarding claim 3 8 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 1 6 . Regarding claim 3 9 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 35, wherein, when a driver seated in the cabin has a height at the median adult male height and a passenger vehicle is driving in a center of a lane adjacent to the heavy-duty truck, the driver has visibility of at least 50%, at least 55% or at least 60% of the profile of the passenger vehicle that would be visible to the driver if the cabin did not obstruct their view ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above) . Regarding claim 40 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 35, wherein, when a driver seated in the cabin has a height at the fifth percentile adult female height and a passenger vehicle is driving at an edge of a lane adjacent to the heavy-duty truck, the driver has visibility of at least 25%, at least 30%, or at least 35% of the profile of the passenger vehicle that would be visible to the driver if the cabin did not obstruct their view ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above) . Regarding claim 4 1 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The heavy-duty truck of claim 35, wherein the at least one windshield includes a supplemental windshield that is adjacent to and aft of a main windshield and separated by or interfacing at an A-pillar ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above) of the heavy-duty truck ( Piroumoff ; see labeled figure above) . Claim(s) 1 5 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piroumoff US2098357 in view of Rausch et al. US20230311625 and Koizumi et al. US7651158 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hudepohl et al. US 9556664 . Regarding claim 15, Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, but does not teach wherein the lower window is rotatable relative to the cabin and is configured to rotate between an open position and a closed position . Hudepohl teaches a tilting window 22 that is powered by a motorized tilting window operator 10 that comprises a motorized drive unit 40 to open/close the tilting window 22 ( Hudepohl ; Fig. 1 and 7; tilting window 22 ; motorized tilting window operator 10 that comprises a motorized drive unit 40 ; col. 11:16-21 operate in forward/reverse positions to open/close the tilting window 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower window as taught by Modified Piroumoff to be rotatable relative to the cabin and is configured to rotate between an open position and a closed position by an actuator as taught by Hudepohl for the purpose of providing a means for the driver to communicate and to pass objects/items with a pedestrian without opening the door. Regarding claim 3 7 , Modified Piroumoff teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 1 5. Allowable Subject Matter Claim(s) 2 , 5 is/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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harris US 2 0190322157 teaches a pivotably movable rear window 70 and a window regulator mechanism 52 and a controller 56. Andrews US11628748 teaches a movable window 902 that can pivot relative to fixed window 904. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-6597 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amy Weisberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 12/17/25