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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: maintenance target in claim 1.
In applicant’s specification, maintenance target is described as “a hydrogen tank, a motor, and a battery” in paragraph 4; “drive unit” in paragraph 19; “hydrogen tanks 8 and cooling water tank” in paragraph 20; and “fuel cell system” in paragraph 33.
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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forostovsky et al. (US 20210046978 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Forostovsky discloses an automobile (Fig. 2) including a space (Fig. 2 and 5-6, space above floor) for accommodating a person or an object, and a maintenance target (battery 120 in Fig. 3) installed outside a constituent portion (107 in Fig. 2; and paragraph 58) of the space, the automobile comprising: an opening portion (paragraph 58, hatches provides access opening) in the constituent portion of the space, the opening portion being formed at a position corresponding to an installation position (Fig. 2-3, since the battery is below the floor 107, opening that provides access to it is at its installation position) of the maintenance target; and a door portion (paragraph 58, removable sections or hatches) allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed.
Regarding claim 4, Forostovsky discloses the automobile according to claim 2, wherein the maintenance target installed outside the floor portion is a drive unit or a battery (battery 120 in Fig. 3) disposed on the chassis frame (Fig. 3 and paragraph 58).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forostovsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of German (US 20070144805 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Forostovsky discloses the automobile according to claim 1, wherein: the automobile is a truck (Forostovsky, paragraph 38, can be a truck) in which a cab (Forostovsky, paragraph 65) as the space are fixedly disposed on a chassis frame (Forostovsky, Fig. 2, on chassis 108; paragraph 65 teaches mounting points for mounting the cab), and the constituent portion of the space is at least one of a floor portion (Forostovsky, floor 107 in Fig. 2), a side wall portion, and a ceiling portion of the cargo compartment.
Forostovsky fails to disclose both a cab and a cargo compartment.
German teaches both a cab and a cargo compartment (German, abstract).
German is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of battery operated trucks with a cab as Forostovsky.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Forostovsky to incorporate the teachings of German with a reasonable expectation of success and have a cab and a cargo compartment separate from the cab such that driver/passenger is protected from potential movement of the cargo.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forostovsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kauffman et al. (US 2997333 A).
Regarding claim 6, Forostovsky discloses the automobile according to claim 1, wherein: the automobile is a vehicle equipped with a cab (Forostovsky, paragraph 65) and the constituent portion of the space is a floor portion (Forostovsky, 107 in Fig. 2).
Forostovsky fails to disclose a body-equipped vehicle equipped with a working machine and the constituent portion of the space is a floor portion on which the working machine is installed.
Kauffman teaches a body-equipped vehicle equipped with a working machine (Kauffman, Fig. 1, crane on a truck; Forostovsky teaches the vehicle can be a truck in paragraph 38), and the constituent portion of the space is a floor portion on which the working machine is installed (after combination, since Kauffman shows the work machine or crane over the rear platform floor).
Kauffman is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of trucks with a cab and a floor and for cargo transport as Forostovsky.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Forostovsky to incorporate the teachings of Kauffman with a reasonable expectation of success and have a work machine hauled on the truck floor such that the vehicle is a body-equipped vehicle. Doing so allows the vehicle to transport work machines to desired places.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (CN 212604543 U) in view of Krause et al. (US 20210213980 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses an automobile (Liang, abstract) including a space (Liang, 102 in Fig. 1) for accommodating a person or an object, and a maintenance target (Liang, hydrogen tank 4 in Fig. 1) installed outside a constituent portion (Liang, wall 11 in Fig. 1) of the space, the automobile comprising: an opening portion (Liang, 12 in Fig. 1) in the constituent portion of the space, the opening portion being formed at a position corresponding to an installation position (Liang, Fig. 2, opening 12 leads to the space where tanks 4 is installed) of the maintenance target.
Liang fails to disclose a door portion allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed.
Krause teaches a door portion (Krause, paragraph 15, door or flap that is closeable and openable) allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed.
Krause is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle with maintenance targets and access to maintenance targets as Liang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Liang to incorporate the teachings of Krause with a reasonable expectation of success and have a door. Doing so allows for an easy accessibility to vehicle components arranged in such a device container, for example, for maintenance purposes (Krause, paragraph 15); also provides protection to the different components located inside the vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liang in view of Krause teaches the automobile according to claim 2, wherein the maintenance target installed outside the side wall portion is a tank for storing fuel (Liang, Fig. 1 and abstract, hydrogen tank for a fuel cell system) used for generating electric power in a fuel cell system or a tank for storing cooling water for cooling various apparatuses.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 20130000997 A1) in view of Nakayama (US 20180111483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses an automobile (Peng, Fig. 1) including a space (Peng, Fig. 1 space above floor for passengers) for accommodating a person or an object (Peng, Fig. 1, space can accommodate both people and objects), and a maintenance target (Peng, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13, battery 101/102) installed outside a constituent portion (Peng, floor in paragraph 13) of the space, the automobile comprising: an opening portion (Peng, paragraph 13, floor can be open) in the constituent portion of the space, the opening portion being formed at a position corresponding to an installation position (Peng, paragraph 13, corresponds to the installation position since the battery is mounted below the floor, at least corresponds vertically) of the maintenance target.
Peng fails to disclose a door portion allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed.
Nakayama teaches a door portion (Nakayama, paragraph 86 and Fig. 7, floor is provided with a maintenance lid) allowing the opening portion to be opened and closed (Nakayama, paragraph 86).
Nakayama is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle with maintenance targets and access to maintenance targets as Peng.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automobile as taught by Peng to incorporate the teachings of Nakayama with a reasonable expectation of success and have a door. Doing so prevents unauthorized and accidental intrusion into the maintenance target space; and provides adequate structural support for components above.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Peng in view of Nakayama teaches the automobile according to claim 1, wherein: the automobile is a bus (Peng, Fig. 1) including an interior space (Peng, Fig. 1, space for passengers with seats) as the space, and the constituent portion of the space is at least one of a floor portion (Peng, Fig. 1 and paragraph 13), a side wall portion, and a ceiling portion of the interior space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose automobiles with maintenance targets outside a constituent portion of a space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612