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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 4 recites "the second front entry step disposed between the first front entry step and the second front entry step". This appears to be in error.
Claim 8, line 1 recites the limitation "been" which appears to be a misspelling of the word 'behind'.
Claim 17, line 3 recites the word 'intersecting' which is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As concerns claim 18, line 1 recites the limitation "narrows inwardly" which is not clearly defined or understood, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Milton et al (US 11,001,129).
As concerns claim 1, Milton discloses a cab for a semi-truck vehicle, comprising:
a main body (Milton - 102) having a forward side, a rearward side, a first side, a second side, a length, a wrap around windshield (Milton - 130), and a wheel well (Milton - 144), the forward side and the rearward side located at opposed ends of a length of the main body (Milton - 102), the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130) disposed across an entirety of the forward side and across only part of the first side and the second side, the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130) having a rear end on each of the first side and the second side, the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130) further having a predetermined field of front vision, a predetermined field of side vision, and a predetermined shield angle of A-pillar, and the wheel well (Milton - 144) having a front portion and a rear portion (Milton - Figure 1);
a seat (Milton - 510) disposed within the main body (Milton - 102) and having a frontside and a rearside;
a rear wall (Milton – Figures 5 and 6) disposed within the main body (Milton - 102) and behind the rearside of the seat (Milton - 510), the rear wall spaced apart from the rearward side of the main body (Milton - 102);
a cabin interior (Milton – Figs 5 & 6) configured to accommodate a driver, the cabin interior located within the main body (Milton - 102) between the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130) and the rear wall, the seat (Milton - 510) disposed within the cabin interior, and the cabin interior including a frontside volume and a rearside volume (Milton – Figure 5), the frontside volume disposed between the seat (Milton - 510) and the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130), and the rearside volume disposed between the seat (Milton - 510) and the rear wall;
a doorway (Milton - Figure 1) formed in the main body (Milton - 102), the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) having a front edge, a rear edge, a top edge, and a bottom edge, and the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) providing ingress and egress to the cabin interior;
a plurality of front entry steps (Milton - Figure 1) disposed beneath the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) and adjacent the rear portion of the wheel well (Milton - 144); and
a door (Milton - 110) configured for selectively opening the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) where in an opened position and selectively closing the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) where in a closed position, the door disposed adjacent the front portion of the wheel well (Milton - 144) of the main body (Milton - 102) and permitting ingress and egress directly to the frontside volume of the cabin interior by the driver using the plurality of front entry steps (Milton - Figure 1) upon the door being in the opened position, and at least a portion of the seat (Milton - 510) disposed rearward of the rear edge of the doorway (Milton - Figure 1),
wherein the front edge of the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) is disposed on a front doorway axis, and the rear edge of the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) is disposed on a rear doorway axis, and the top edge of the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) is disposed on a top doorway axis, and the bottom edge of the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) is disposed on a bottom doorway axis, and the front portion of the wheel well (Milton - 144) is disposed on a front wheel well axis, and the rear portion of the wheel well (Milton - 144) is disposed on a rear wheel well axis, and the frontside of the seat (Milton - 510) is disposed on a frontside seat axis, and the rearside of the seat (Milton - 510) is disposed on a rearside seat axis, and the rear wall is disposed on a rear wall axis, the rearside seat axis located forward of the rear wall axis a predetermined distance, and the rear end of the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130) disposed on a rear end window axis, the forward side of the main body (Milton - 102) is disposed on a forward side axis, and the rearward side of the main body (Milton - 102) is disposed on a rearward side axis. (As understood, Milton illustrates a vehicle with the claimed axes due to its disclosure of the same structural pieces.)
PNG
media_image1.png
369
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 15, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, wherein there is no other door disposed rearward of the door of the main body (Milton - 102). (Figures 1 and 2)
As concerns claim 17, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, further comprising a grille, wherein a top grill section is oriented on a top grill section axis and a bottom grill section is oriented on a bottom grill section axis, and the top grill section axis and the bottom grill section axis intersecting to define a concave area angle. (Milton – Figure 10A illustrates two grill sections as claimed with intersecting axes.)
PNG
media_image2.png
537
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 18, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 17, wherein the wrap around windshield (Milton - 130) narrows inwardly at a location above the grille. (As best understood, Milton – Figure 9 appears to illustrate such a narrowing, whereby windshield tapers inward as it extends upward.)
PNG
media_image3.png
394
315
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 19, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, further comprising a first headlamp and a second headlamp (Milton – Figure 9 illustrates a left and right headlamp at the front of the vehicle cab), the first headlamp disposed adjacent the first side of the main body (Milton - 102), and the second headlamp disposed adjacent the second side of the main body (Milton - 102), a grille (Milton – Figure 9/10) disposed between the first headlamp and the second headlamp.
As concerns claim 20, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 19, wherein each of the first headlamp and the second headlamp include a plurality of headlamp elements. (Milton – Figure 9 illustrates multiple sections within the headlamp area).
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 2, 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton ‘129 in view of Angelo (US 2014/0252798).
As concerns claim 2, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of front entry steps (Milton - Figure 1) include a first front entry step, a second front entry step, and a third front entry step, the first front entry step disposed adjacent a ground surface, the third front entry step disposed adjacent the bottom edge of the doorway (Milton - Figure 1) of the main body (Milton - 102), and the second front entry step disposed between the first front entry step and the second front entry step, and the first front entry step is arranged between a forward first front entry step axis and a rearward first front entry step axis, and the second front entry step is arranged between a forward second front entry step axis and a rearward second front entry step axis, and the third front entry step is arranged between a forward third front entry step axis and a rearward third front entry step axis.
Milton fails to specify a third entry step, and wherein each of the forward first front entry step axis, the rearward first front entry step axis, the forward second front entry step axis, the rearward second front entry step axis, the forward third front entry step axis, and the rearward third front entry step axis are at different locations along the length of the main body (Milton - 102).
Angelo (US 2014/0252798) teaches a cab with a third entry step (Figures 2 and 3; steps 144, 152 and 168) with each entry step being at different axes along truck.
PNG
media_image4.png
494
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
670
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Milton as taught by Angelo to include a third step and for having the steps at differing axes along the length of the cab for the expected benefit of providing the cab with a more ergonomic step configuration for easier user ingress and egress, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 3, the combination discloses the cab of claim 2, wherein the forward second front entry step axis (Angelo – step 152) is disposed between the rear wheel well axis and the forward first front entry step axis. (Milton – Figure 2)
As concerns claim 14, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, however fails to specify wherein the bottom doorway axis is oriented at a bottom edge angle relative to a horizontal axis, whereby the bottom edge slopes in an upward direction away from the rear portion of the wheel well (Milton - 144) of the main body (Milton - 102).
Angelo, however, teaches wherein the bottom edge of the doorway (122) slopes upward away from the rea portion of the wheel well (140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Milton as taught by Angelo to include a sloped bottom edge as claimed for the expected benefit of increasing aerodynamic efficiency, accessibility and/or aesthetic design, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton ‘129 in view of Angelo and further in view of Purushothama (US2022/0048424).
As concerns claim 4, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 3, however fails to specify further comprising a first or second hand hold.
Purushothama (US 2022/0048424) however teaches a cab further comprising a first hand hold (Purushothama – 100) disposed adjacent the front edge of the doorway (Figure 2a).
PNG
media_image6.png
729
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as taught by Purushothama to include a hand hold for the expected benefit of facilitating safe and efficient ingress and egress of the vehicle, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to provide multiple handles for ease of entry or exit to a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an additional handle on the opposite side of the doorway for the expected benefit of providing additional holding opportunities to further facilitate safe ingress and egress of the vehicle. Furthermore, the addition of another handle is considered well within the skill level of a PHOSITA since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a second hand hold would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination as further taught by Official Notice to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 5, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 4, wherein the third front entry step (Angelo – 168) is accessible when the door is in the opened position. (Angelo – Figure 2) (This is also true of all of Angelo’s steps.)
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton ‘129 in view of Milton et al (US 10,589,788).
As concerns claim 6, the Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, however fails to specify further comprising a plurality of fuel tanks for the semi-truck vehicle.
Milton et al (US 10,589,788) however teaches a truck cab comprising a plurality of fuel tanks (Figures 1 and 2, system 19, with tanks 26).
PNG
media_image7.png
470
748
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Milton as further taught by Milton ‘788 to include multiple fuel tanks for the expected benefit of providing a fuel containment system onboard, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 7, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 6, wherein the plurality of fuel tanks are hydrogen tanks. (Milton – 19 is listed as “any suitable energy supply system (ESS) 19, such as a hydrogen fuel cell”)
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton ‘129 in view of Milton ‘788 and further in view of Van Der Linden (US 10,124,665).
As concerns claim 8, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 7, however fails to specify further comprising a rack disposed behind the rear wall axis and the rearward side axis, and the plurality of fuel tanks are supported by the rack in a vertical arrangement.
Van Der Linden (US 10,124,665) however teaches a vehicle system comprising a rack as claimed (Figure 2B)
PNG
media_image8.png
461
590
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As concerns claim 9, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 8, wherein the plurality of fuel tanks are disposed entirely within the main body (Milton - 102) of the cab. (Milton ‘788 shows the tanks 19 being housed within the body. Van Der Linden, similarly, shows the tanks being housed within an enclosure; see Figure 2B.)
As concerns claim 10, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 9, wherein the plurality of fuel tanks (Milton ‘788 – 23 / Van Der Linden – 10) includes a first set of fuel tanks and a second set of fuel tanks, and the first set of fuel tanks (Van Der Linden – 10) are disposed entirely within the main body of the cab (Van Der Linden – enclosure 130 in combination with element 240 is considered to be analogous to Applicant’s cab with separation for the rack and tanks) and supported by the rack, and the second set of fuel tanks (are disposed outside of the main body of the cab (Milton ‘788 – 23 are disposed alongside the body, outside of the rack) and are not supported by the rack.
As concerns claim 11, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 10, wherein the second set of fuel tanks are disposed at least partly underneath the main body (Milton ‘788 – Fig 1 and 2).
As concerns claim 12, the combination discloses the cab of Claim 11, wherein the second set of fuel tanks are disposed adjacent to the plurality of front entry steps of the main body (Milton ‘788 – Figure 1).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milton ‘129 ALONE.
As concerns claim 13, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, however fails to specify wherein the rearside seat axis is disposed between the rear doorway axis and the rear wall axis.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to adjust the placement of seat elements within a vehicle based on optimizing comfort and visibility.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the rearside seat axis to be disposed between the rear doorway axis and the rear wall axis for the expected benefit of providing optimized access into and out of the vehicle as well as visibility during operation of the vehicle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a rearside seat axis disposed between the rear doorway axis and rear wall axis would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Milton as taught by Official Notice to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 16, Milton discloses the cab of Claim 1, however fails to specify wherein the rear end window axis (Milton – rear edge of window 114) is disposed rearward of the rear doorway axis.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to adjust the placement of window elements on a vehicle based on optimizing comfort and visibility.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the rear end window axis to be disposed rearward of the rear doorway axis (i.e. continue the window through the door and into the side wall) for the expected benefit of providing optimized viewing to the exterior of the vehicle during operation of the vehicle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a rear end window axis disposed rearward of the rear doorway axis would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Milton as taught by Official Notice to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679