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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 7/1/26 response to the Office Action dated 4/1/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 12, 16, and 17 are amended.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-19 are pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome most of the previously set forth drawing objections and all of the 112(b) rejections. The Applicant’s remarks regarding the remaining drawing objections, reference number 20 on pg. 7 and frame compartment 300 on pg. 8, and the 112(a) rejection, claim 16 on pg. 9, have fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, for the above reasons, the objections and rejections are withdrawn accordingly.
The Applicant’s remarks regarding the remaining drawing objections, reference number 20 on pgs. 9-10 regarding the 112(f) interpretations of ‘interface’ have been fully considered and are persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation includes ‘a surface forming a boundary of two bodies or spaces’ (see attached) which denotes sufficient structure. Therefore, for the above reasons, the 112(f) interpretations of ‘interface’ is withdrawn accordingly.
As noted on pg. 10 of the Remarks, in the interview dated 7/2/26 Examiner indicated the proposed amendments would likely overcome the prior art of record, subject to further search and/or consideration. Upon further consideration, the prior art of record reads on the amended claims. To elaborate, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, duct member 47 of Haboon is a manifold. A manifold is designed to connect one hollow body or pipe with multiple other hollow bodies or pipes, therefore duct member 47 is a ‘manifold’ because it connects HVAC unit 50 to exit vents 45 and 46. In addition, it’s the Examiner’s position that the “supply air and return air passages that fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum, respectively” is read on by an air passage through which both supply and return air flow, as long as the supply air passage fluidly communicates with the supply plenum and the return air passage fluidly communicates with the return plenum. Therefore, Haboon reads on the recited limitation because there must necessarily be at least a combined supply air and return air passages from HVAC unit 50 through duct member 47 and out exit duct 45 of Haboon. There must also necessarily be at least a supply air passage from the supply plenum to exit vent 46 and a return air passage from the return plenum to exit duct 45. Reference Fig. 4 and Par. 0020.
NOTE: It appears there are unclaimed differences between the manifold shown in Fig. 27 of the as-filed specification and the manifold from the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10, line 2: return structure. The nonce term “structure” is modified by functional language “return” and “operable to receive air from the operator cab and direct return air toward the return plenum”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a rectangular opening as shown as item 310 in Fig. 27, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haboon et al. (US20070145781A1, hereafter Haboon) in view of Bailloeuil et al. (FR2944588A1, hereafter Bailloeuil).
Regarding claim 1, Haboon discloses a loader (Par. 0007, loader) comprising:
a loader frame (Figs. 1-2, work body 17, which provides a frame or shape and/or strength to the loader and is thus a ‘loader frame’);
an operator cab (Figs. 1 and 5, machine cab 12) supported relative to the loader frame (Fig. 1, machine cab 12 is supported adjacent to work body 17) and presenting a cab interior (Fig. 1, interior of machine cab 12) configured to receive an operator during loader use (Fig. 1, interior of machine cab 12 and Par. 0030, “During operation of work machine 10, the fully enclosed, rotatable machine cab 12 is in the closed position as shown in FIG. 1. The operator ingresses and egresses through the front door 30 as required or needed.”); wherein the operator cab is configured to be shifted between an operating position (Fig. 1, which shows machine cab 12 in a position in which an operator can enter the machine cab 12 in order to operate the loader (i.e., operating position). Compare to Fig. 2, which shows machine cab 12 after it has shifted out of the operating position) and an access position (Fig. 2, which shows machine cab 12 in a position in which an operator can access the HVAC unit 50, the HVAC main intake duct 55 within the frame compartment), wherein at least a portion of the operator cab is raised away from the loader frame when in the access position (Fig. 2);
an HVAC unit (Fig. 3, HVAC unit 50) operably supported relative to the loader frame (Par. 0018, “the HVAC unit 50…may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17”, which discloses HVAC unit 50 is operably supported within work body 17 (i.e., loader frame)),
a supply plenum operable to discharge supply air from the HVAC unit (annotated Fig. A, supply plenum. The structure identified in annotated Fig. A is an air-filled space or plenum that supplies air from HVAC unit 50 to the machine cab 12 via exit ducts 45 and is therefore a ‘supply plenum’. See Par. 0020) and a return plenum operable to receive return air from the operator cab (annotated Fig. A, return plenum. The structure identified in annotated Fig. A is an air-filled space or plenum that receives air returning from the machine cab 12 via recirculated air intake 38 and is therefore a ‘return plenum’. See Par. 0020); and
a manifold (Fig. 6, duct member 47. A manifold is designed to connect one hollow body or pipe with multiple other hollow bodies or pipes, therefore duct member 47 is a ‘manifold’ because it connects HVAC unit 50 to exit vents 45 and 46) attached to an exterior of the operator cab (Fig. 6, duct member 47, which is exterior to the machine cab 12 interior) such that said manifold moves with the operator cab as the operator cab is shifted between the operating position and the access position (Par. 0018, “machine cab 12 with…U-shaped duct member 47 rotates away from the work body 17 as shown in FIG. 2 to allow access for service personnel”), wherein the manifold presents supply air and return air passages (Fig. 4, there must necessarily be at least a combined supply air and return air passages from HVAC unit 50 through duct member 47 and out exit duct 45) that fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum, respectively, when the operator cab is in the operating position (Par. 0020, “conditioned air travels through the intermediate air intake duct 49 past the intermediate seal 53 and into the HVAC main intake duct 55. Next, the air flows into and through the HVAC unit 50 for conditioning and for distribution to the U-shaped duct member 47. The conditioned air now flows from the U-shaped duct member 47 to exit ducts 45 and out exit vents 46 where part of the conditioned air is recirculated via intake 38 and the process starts all over again.”. There must necessarily be at least a supply air passage from the supply plenum to exit vent 46 and a return air passage from the return plenum to exit duct 45),
said supply air and return air passages fluidly communicating with the cab interior (Par. 0020, as quoted above),
said supply plenum and said supply air passage being operably engaged relative to one another along an interface (Fig. 4, bottom surface of floor plate 42. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an interface is a surface forming a common boundary of two spaces, therefore the bottom surface of floor plate 42 is an ‘interface’ because it is a surface that forms a common boundary of the openings shown in Fig. 7 that pass through floor plate 42) when the operator cab is in the operating position to provide fluid communication between the HVAC unit and the operator cab (Fig. 1, which shows machine cab 12 is positioned such that an operator can enter the machine cab 12 in order to operate the loader (i.e., an operating position). See Pars. 0019-0020), and wherein said supply plenum and said supply air passage are operably disengaged relative to one another when the operator cab is in the access position (Fig. 2, and Par. 0018, “As noted above, the HVAC unit 50, the HVAC main intake duct 55, and floor plate 42 may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17, even though the machine cab 12 with exit ducts 45, exit vents 46, and U-shaped duct member 47 rotates away from the work body 17 as shown in FIG. 2 to allow access for service personnel.” Note annotated A shows the return and supply plenums are part of HVAC unit 50).
It’s the Examiner’s position that the “supply air and return air passages that fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum, respectively” is read on by an air passage through which both supply and return air flow, as long as the supply air passage fluidly communicates with the supply plenum and the return air passage fluidly communicates with the return plenum. To the extent the Applicant disagrees and finds that this limitation requires separate structures for the supply air and return air passages, then the following teaching reference is provided.
Bailloeuil is in the field of HVAC (Pg. 1, Par. 1) similar to the present invention and Bailloeuil discloses it is known for a manifold (Fig. 1, annotated Fig. B, manifold, which has outlets for connecting airflow between ducts and therefore is a ‘manifold’) to have multiple air passages (Fig. 1, openings 5, which are passages or a way of exit or entrance for the flow of air and are therefore ‘air passages’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haboon’s device to include the manifold as taught by Bailloeuil in order to minimize the manufacturing costs of adaptations (As suggested by Pg. 7, 2nd Par of Bailloeuil “the manufacturing costs of such a plenum 1, as well as 15 of each module 3, remain limited while adapting to all wind tunnel dimensions 23”) and thereby reduce the cost of adapting the HVAC system to a wider variety of loaders.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Return plenum)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Supply plenum)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 4 from Haboon showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
NOTE: It’s the examiner’s position that modified Haboon would read on “the manifold presents supply air and return air passages that fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum, respectively” (emphasis added) as claimed. To elaborate, modifying Haboon to have the manifold of Bailloeuil downstream of the HVAC unit 50 necessarily means that the air passages (Fig. 1, openings 5) of Bailloeuil will fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum respectively. Therefore, the air passage taught by Bailloeuil (annotated Fig. C) that mates with the supply plenum is a ‘supply air passage’ and the other air passage taught by Bailloeuil (annotated Fig. C) that mates with the return plenum is a ‘return air passage’.
PNG
media_image3.png
540
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Manifold)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Bailloeuil showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
PNG
media_image3.png
540
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Supply air passage)][AltContent: textbox (Return air passage)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Supply air manifold section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Return air manifold section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. C: Annotated copy of Fig. 1 from Bailloeuil showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Regarding claim 7, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 1, said operator cab including a supply duct (Fig. 4, exit ducts 45, which supply air to machine cab 12 and is therefore a ‘supply duct’. See Par. 0020) operable to receive supply air discharged from the supply plenum (annotated Fig. A, supply plenum) via the supply air passage (Fig. 5, which shows there must necessarily be an opening in floor plate 42 that connects with duct member 47 in order for air to flow from air intake 38 to exit ducts 45 as disclosed. See Pars. 0019-0020) and direct the supply air into the operator cab (Par. 0020, “air now flows from the U-shaped duct member 47 to exit ducts 45 and out exit vents 46 into the machine cab 12”).
Regarding claim 8, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 7, said supply plenum (annotated Fig. A, supply plenum) and said supply duct (Fig. 4, exit ducts 45) being fluidly engaged relative to one another in the operating position (Fig. 1 and Par. 0019, “the U-shaped duct member 47 mentioned above reseals to the floor plate 42 and cushioning gasket 44 when the machine cab 12 is in the closed position.”) and being fluidly disengaged when the operator cab is shifted out of the operating position (Par. 0018, “floor plate 42 may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17, even though the machine cab 12 with exit ducts 45, exit vents 46, and U-shaped duct member 47 rotates away from the work body 17 as shown in FIG. 2 to allow access for service personnel”).
Regarding claim 9, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 8, said supply plenum (annotated Fig. A, supply plenum) and said manifold (Fig. 7, floor plate 42) being in abutting engagement with one another in the operating position (Fig. 1) to facilitate fluid communication between the supply plenum and the supply duct (Fig. 4, exit ducts 45. See Par. 0020).
Regarding claim 10, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 1, said operator cab (Fig. 1, machine cab 12) including a return structure (Fig. 6 and Pars. 0019-0020, the opening that must necessarily be present in air intake 38 for air to flow from air intake 38 to exit ducts 45 as disclosed. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the return structure is a rectangular opening and equivalents thereof; therefore the opening in air intake 38 reads on the claim) operable to receive air from the operator cab and direct return air toward the return plenum (annotated Fig. A, return plenum and Pars. 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 11, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 10, said return plenum (annotated Fig. A, return plenum) and said manifold (Fig. 7, floor plate 42) being in abutting engagement with one another in the operating position (Fig. 1) to facilitate fluid communication between the return plenum and the return structure (Fig. 6 and Pars. 0019-0020, the opening that must necessarily be present in air intake 38 for air to flow from air intake 38 to exit ducts 45 as disclosed. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the return structure is a rectangular opening and equivalents thereof; therefore the opening in air intake 38 reads on the claim. See Par. 0020).
Regarding claim 12, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 1, said operator cab (Fig. 1, machine cab 12) being swingably attached relative to the loader frame (Figs. 1-2, work body 17) at a cab pivot joint (Par. 0017, cab pivot mounts) and configured to swing into and out of (Figs. 1-2) the operating position (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 12, said cab pivot joint (Par. 0017, cab pivot mounts) defining a horizontal pivot axis (Fig. 1 and Par. 0017, pivot axis 14) permitting the operator cab to swing vertically when moving into and out of (Figs. 1-2 and Par. 0017, “The fully enclosed, rotatable machine cab 12 may be rotatably mounted to the work body 17 along pivot axis 14 using cab pivot mounts (not shown)”) the operating position (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 8 above. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 9 above. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 16, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 12, said operator cab (Fig. 1, machine cab 12) at least partly overlying and positioned adjacent to a frame compartment (Figs. 1, 6 and Par. 0018, “the HVAC unit 50, the HVAC main intake duct 55, and floor plate 42 may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17”. There must necessarily be a compartment within work body 17 (i.e., loader frame) to contain the HVAC unit, HVAC main intake duct 55, and floor plate 42 as disclosed) in the operating position (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 16, wherein the supply plenum (annotated Fig. A, supply plenum) and the supply duct (Fig. 4, exit ducts 45, which supply air to machine cab 12 and is therefore a ‘supply duct’. See Par. 0020) are fluidly disconnected from each other when the operator cab is in the access position (Par. 0018, “As noted above, the HVAC unit 50, the HVAC main intake duct 55, and floor plate 42 may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17, even though the machine cab 12 with exit ducts 45, exit vents 46, and U-shaped duct member 47 rotates away from the work body 17 as shown in FIG. 2 to allow access for service personnel.”).
Regarding claim 18, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a loader frame (Figs. 1-2, work body 17) that presents a frame compartment (Figs. 1, 6 and Par. 0018, “the HVAC unit 50, the HVAC main intake duct 55, and floor plate 42 may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17”. There must necessarily be a compartment within work body 17 (i.e., loader frame) to contain the HVAC unit, HVAC main intake duct 55, and floor plate 42 as disclosed), said HVAC unit (Fig. 3, HVAC unit 50) operably supported by the loader frame (Par. 0018, “the HVAC unit 50…may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17”, which discloses HVAC unit 50 is operably supported within work body 17 (i.e., loader frame)) and located at least partly within the frame compartment (Par. 0018, “the HVAC unit 50…may be securely mounted to and remain with the work body 17”.).
Regarding claim 19, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 16 above. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 16 above.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haboon et al. (US20070145781A1, hereafter Haboon) in view of Bailloeuil et al. (FR2944588A1, hereafter Bailloeuil).
Regarding claim 2, Haboon, as modified above, discloses the loader as claimed in claim 1, said manifold (Bailloeuil: annotated Fig. B) including a supply air manifold section (annotated Fig. C, supply air manifold section) and a return air manifold section (annotated Fig. C, return air manifold section) that define the respective supply air (annotated Fig. C, supply air passage) and return air passages (annotated Fig. C, return air passage), with at least one of the manifold sections defining a wall (annotated Fig. C, wall) that separates the supply air and return air passages from one another.
Regarding claim 5, Haboon, as modified above, discloses the loader as claimed in claim 2, said manifold sections (annotated Fig. C, supply air manifold section and return air manifold section) cooperatively forming a unitary manifold structure (annotated Fig. B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kimura et al. (US20100102594A1) discloses a connection (Fig. 13, connector box 14D) on an exterior of the operator cab (Fig. 2, cab 11. Cross reference the location of connector box 14D with the location of filter accommodation case 26 in Fig. 2 because they are mated, as shown in Fig. 7) that moves with the operator cab as the operator cab is shifted between the operating position (Fig. 1) and the access position (Fig. 2).
Warman et al. (DD 221970 A5) discloses a manifold for a cab.
Kim et al. (KR 20150093007 A) discloses a manifold for a cab.
Horii et al. (WO 2022163304 A1) discloses a manifold for a work machine.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights