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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both 1) the cab in at least Figs. 23-26 and 2) a vertical feature in Figs. 27-29. For the purposes of substantiative examination and in light of the disclosure, it’s the Examiner’s understanding that reference character “20” in Fig. 23-26 refers to the cab. It’s unclear what reference character “20” in Figs. 27-29 refers to, so the Examiner kindly requests clarification in the Applicant’s reply.
Similarly, reference character “432” has been used to designate both the return opening in Par. 00180 of the as-filed specification and the return air manifold section in Par. 00198 of the as-filed specification. For the purposes of substantiative examination and in light of 1) the feature’s location on the manifold 306 and 2) the reference character appearing to identify a section rather than an opening, it’s the Examiner’s understanding that reference character “432” in Figs. 27-29 refers to the return air manifold section.
The drawings are objected to because both HVAC system “44” and HVAC unit “311” appear to correspond to the same structure, as shown in at least Figs. 27-28. Examiner kindly requests clarification in the Applicant’s reply. In particular, it’s unclear how HVAC unit 311 could include supply plenum 312 and return plenum 314 as shown in Figs. 27-28 in light of Par. 0174 of the as-filed specification which discloses, “HVAC system 44 includes an HVAC unit 311, a supply plenum 312, and a return plenum 314.”
As explained in the Claim Interpretation section below, “interface” as recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 17, and 20 is interpreted under 112(f) as a flange, as specified in Par. 00183, and equivalents thereof. The as-filed disclosure identifies the interface flange as reference character “317”. In addition, the as-filed disclosure identifies a wall as reference character “344” and recites in claim 3, “wall defining at least part of the interface”. Substantially the same disclosure is recited in the last line of Par. 0190 of the as-filed specification. Looking at Fig. 28 which shows both “317” and “344”, it is unclear how wall 344 could define at least part of the interface given the recited interface “320” is interpreted under 112(f) as interface flange “317” and the features identified as “317” and “344” are located on different structures. The same or substantially the same ambiguity applies to:
seal elements “346” and interface “320” (interpreted as interference flange “317”). To elaborate, claim 4 recites “seal that extends along the interface”, but the features identified as “317” and “346” are also located on different structures in Fig. 28. Substantially the same disclosure as what is recited in claim 4 is disclosed in the first two lines of Par. 0191 of the as-filed specification.
Claim 16 recites “operator cab at least partly overlying…the frame compartment in the operating position”. However, operator cab 12 is not at least partly overlying frame compartment 300 in the operating position shown in Fig. 23. Examiner notes operator cab 20 appears to at least partly overly the frame compartment 300 in the access position, as shown in Fig. 26.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, lines 14-16: interface. The nonce term “interface” is modified by functional language “said supply plenum and said supply air passage being operably engaged relative to one another along an interface.” The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a flange, as specified in Par. 00183, and equivalents thereof.
The same interpretation applies to claims 3, 4, 17, and 20.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the following limitation is recited: “operator cab at least partly overlying…the frame compartment in the operating position” (Claim 16, lines 2-3). The as-filed specification does not mention this feature outside of its recitation in claim 16. Looking at Fig. 23, operator cab 12 is not at least partly overlying frame compartment 300 in the operating position. Examiner notes operator cab 20 appears to at least partly overly the frame compartment 300 in the access position, as shown in Fig. 26.
In light of the above discrepancy between the claim language and what the drawings disclose, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for the operator cab at least partly overlying the frame compartment in the operating position. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention only conceived the operator cab at least partly overlying the frame compartment in the access position, and therefore the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 16.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 2, line 2 recites “respective supply air and return air passages” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the recited “supply air and return air passages” in claim 2 are the same as or different from the ones recited in claim 1, lines 9-10. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it’s presumed that the supply air passage in claim 1 and the return air passage in claim 1 as the same as the respective ones recited in claim 2. Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claims 3-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 16, line 2 recites “the frame compartment” which lacks antecedent basis. Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haboon et al. (US 20070145781 A1, hereafter Haboon) in view of Bailloeuil et al. (FR2944588A1, hereafter Bailloeuil).
Reference is made to the attached French to English machine translation of Bailloeuil ‘588.
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 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)),
said HVAC unit including 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
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.”),
said supply air and return air passages fluidly communicating with the cab interior (Par. 0019, as quoted above),
said supply plenum and said supply air passage being operably engaged relative to one another along an interface (Fig. 4, floor plate 42. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the interface is a flange and equivalents thereof. A flange is used to attach an object to another object, therefore floor plate 42 is a ‘flange’ because it is used to attach duct member 47 to HVAC unit 50. See Par. 0018) 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).
However, Haboon does not disclose a manifold associated with the operator cab that presents supply air and return air passages that fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum, respectively.
Bailloeuil discloses a solution to the problem of how to provide an adjustable (Pg. 4, last Par. - Pg. 5, 1st Par, “this valve allows limiting the amount of flow passing through a given opening 5”), temperature controlled airflow (Pg. 1, Par. 2, “As such, a blower system, in particular an air conditioner, includes a motorized blower for circulating hot or cold air”), similar to the problem of providing an adjustable, temperature controlled airflow to the cab in the present invention (as-filed specification, Par. 0169, “HVAC system 44 is configured to provide an adjustable, temperature controlled airflow to the cab 20.”). Bailloeuil further 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’) with 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 “a manifold associated with the operator cab that presents supply air and return air passages that fluidly communicate with the supply plenum and return plenum, respectively” (emphasis added) as claimed. To elaborate, Haboon discloses the HVAC unit 50 is associated with the operator cab 12 (Fig. 4), therefore modifying Haboon so the manifold as taught by Bailloeuil is downstream of HVAC unit 50 necessarily means the manifold is associated with the operator cab as well. Similarly, modifying Haboon to have the manifold of Bailloeuil downstream of 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.
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 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.
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 3, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 2, wherein a wall (annotated Fig. D) defines at least part of the interface (Fig. 4, floor plate 42).
However, Haboon, as modified above, does not disclose said wall defining at least part of the interface.
However, the court has held making structures integral is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element were significant. See MPEP 2144.04 V B. In this case, the applicant has not provided any significance to the wall defining at least part of the interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to integrate the wall of Bailloeuil into the interface as disclosed by Haboon so they are integrally formed in one piece. In this case, making the wall integral with the interface would provide the predicable benefit of easier and/or cheaper manufacturing and/or assembly.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Return air passage)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Return air manifold section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
428
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. D: Annotated copy of Fig. 7 from Haboon showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
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).
Regarding claim 6, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 1, said operator cab (Fig. 1, machine cab 12) being shiftably connected relative to the loader frame (Figs. 1-2, work body 17. See Figs. 1-2) and shiftable into and out of (Figs. 1-2) 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), in which the operator cab is configured to receive an operator during loader use (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.”)
Regarding claim 7, Haboon discloses the loader as claimed in claim 6, 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 6, 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 6, 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 the 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, said operator cab (Fig. 1, machine cab 12) being swingable into and out of (Figs. 1-2) 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) in which at least part of the operator cab is shifted away from the loader frame to expose the frame compartment (Figs. 1, 6 and Par. 0018, as explained in claim 16), with 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) being disengaged from each other along the interface 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.
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 17 above. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 17 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haboon et al. (US 20070145781 A1, hereafter Haboon) in view of Bailloeuil et al. (FR2944588A1, hereafter Bailloeuil) and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20170151854 A1, hereafter Smith).
Regarding claim 4, Haboon, as modified above, discloses the loader as claimed in claim 3.
However, Haboon, as modified above, does not disclose said manifold including a seal that extends along the interface to engage at least one of the supply plenum and the return plenum for restricting fluid communication therebetween.
Smith discloses a loader (Par. 0077) similar to the present invention and Smith further discloses it is known for a manifold (Fig. 7 receiver box 38, which has outlets for connecting airflow between ducts and therefore is a ‘manifold’) including a seal (Par. 0018 and Fig. 7A, seal 54) that extends along an interface (Annotated Fig. D, interface. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the interface is a flange and equivalents thereof. A flange is used to attach an object to another object, therefore structure in annotated Fig. D is a ‘flange’ because it is used to attach receiver box 38 to HVAC module 22. See Par. 0018) to engage at least one of a supply plenum (Fig. 7, portion of hood 51 with outlet opening 50 and Par. 0064, “Located about the…outlet opening 52 are seals 54”. The portion of hood 51 with outlet opening 52 is an air-filled space or plenum that supplies air to the HVAC module 22 and is therefore a ‘supply plenum’. See Par. 0065) and a return plenum (Fig. 7, portion of hood 51 with inlet opening 50 and Par. 0064, “Located about the inlet opening 50…are seals 54”. The portion of hood 51 with inlet opening 50 is an air-filled space or plenum that receives returns air from operator cab 20 and is therefore a ‘return plenum’. See Par. 0065) for restricting fluid communication therebetween (Par. 0065, “The seal 54 prevents the escape of air between the components”).
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 the loader of Haboon to prevent the escape of air (As suggested by Par. 0065 of Smith: “The seal 54 prevents the escape of air between the components”) and thereby increase the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the HVAC system.
NOTE: Haboon discloses a HVAC system 52, as shown in Fig. 3.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Return air manifold section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
565
845
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Interface (shaded))][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. E: Annotated copy of Fig. 7 from Smith showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bolli et al (EP 1959208 A2) discloses a manifold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm 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