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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald (US 2009/0038186) in view of Komatsu (JP 2002-206253; applicant cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Oswald discloses a work machine comprised of a frame 14, 16; a cab 22 supported by the frame and configured to house an operator of the work machine; at least one loader arm 24 supported on the frame and shiftable relative to the frame between a raised position and a lowered position, wherein the frame includes (i) a forward portion 14 and a rearward portion 16, and (ii) a first side and a second side, wherein the first side and the second side are laterally separated from each other, wherein at least the first side of the frame comprises an inner panel and a cover panel 23 at the rearward portion of the frame (see Fig. 1; inner panel is panel laterally offset inward of cover panel 23), wherein the cover panel is spaced outwardly from the inner panel. It is unclear if the cover panel is shorter than the inner panel. Komatsu discloses a work machine including a cab and a machine room 17 at the rear end, wherein the outer panel of the machine room (Fig. 4, at 17eL) is shorter than the inner side of the panel (Fig., 4 at 17C) such that a portion of a top edge of the outer panel is positioned vertically lower than a top edge of an inner panel. Before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the lower outer cover panel of Komatsu on the work machine of Oswald in order to increase the view of the surroundings to the operator. The motivation is provided by Komatsu.
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, the top of the cover panel (outer panel) of Komatsu reduced in height from front to back (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Oswald includes a top panel 46 (Fig. 1) between the sides.
Regarding Claim 6, the cover panel 23 of Oswald is the exterior most portion.
Regarding Claim 7, the cab of Komatsu includes a window positioned on a rearward-facing side of the cab (Fig. 4, back of cab 6), wherein the first side of the frame is configured such that a line of sight extending from a center of the window, tangent to the top edge of the inner panel, and to the ground surface does not contact the cover panel (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, the line of sight of Komatsu extends tangent to the top edge of the inner panel at a position located on a rearward half of the top edge (Fig. 5, line of sight covers entirety of the rear panel).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, the at least one loader arm 24 of Oswald is attached to the first side of the frame of the work machine via a pivot connection formed with both the inner panel and the cover panel 23 of the first side of the frame (Fig. 1), wherein a rearward end of the at least one loader arm is positioned between the inner panel and the cover panel 23.
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, the top edge of the inner panel extends from adjacent the pivot connection to a rearward end of the frame (Oswald; Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the top edge of the cover panel 23 extends from adjacent the pivot connection to the rearward end of the frame (Oswald; Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claims 12 and 15, Oswald discloses the second side of the frame comprises an inner panel and a cover panel 23 at the rearward portion of the frame, wherein the cover panel 23 is spaced outwardly from the inner panel, wherein at least a portion of a top edge of the cover panel is positioned vertically lower than a top edge of the inner panel (rear end of cover panel 23 is lower than the top edge of inner panel at the front).
Regarding Claim 13, Oswald discloses a second loader arm 24 on the second side of the machine.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Oswald and Komatsu discloses a work machine comprised of a frame (Oswald; 14, 16); a cab (Oswald; 22) supported by the frame and configured to house an operator of the work machine, wherein the cab includes a window (Oswald; 38) positioned on a rearward- facing side of the cab; at least one loader arm (Oswald; 24) supported on the frame and shiftable relative to the frame between a raised position and a lowered position, wherein the frame includes (i) a forward portion (Oswald; 14) and a rearward portion (Oswald; 16), and (ii) a first side and a second side, wherein the first side and the second side are laterally separated from each other, wherein at least the first side of the frame comprises an inner panel and a cover panel 23 at the rearward portion of the frame (Oswald; see Fig. 1; inner panel is panel laterally offset inward of cover panel 23), wherein the cover panel is spaced outwardly from the inner panel, wherein the first side of the frame is configured such that a line of sight extending from a center of the window, tangent to a top edge of the inner panel, and to the ground surface does not contact the cover panel (Komatsu; Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 17 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 3, 4 and 17, having the top edge of the inner panel reducing in height from front to back at a greater rate than the top edge of the cover panel reducing from front to back, is novel.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the prior art is silent as to the angle of the line of sight of at least 35 degrees below the horizontal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to work machines, their cabin configurations and sight windows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612