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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “devicedisposed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. With respect to claim 17, the claim recites TEFC electric motor without defining what TEFC stands for. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson US 4,234,203 (hence Johnson) in view of Grossen et al US 2015/0075880 A1 (hence Grossen) and Wells US 6,296,119 B1 (hence Wells).
In re claim 1, Johnson discloses wagon having particular adaptability for use in the picking of fruits of cultivated berry plants (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A hydraulic mobile cart (Fig.1), comprising: a wheeled vehicle having a frame that includes a seating area adapted to be disposed in close proximity to a ground surface over which the wheeled vehicle travels to reduce bending and effort adapted to harvest a plurality of produce (Fig.1, and Col.2, lines 12-18);
an upper canopy adapted to cover an operator and a plurality of picking areas adjacent to a pair of sides of the wheeled vehicle (Fig.1, #25, and Col.2, Lines 19-26);
a plurality of harvesting containers supported by the frame (Fig.1, #17, and Col.2, Lines 19-26);
and a harvest container holding plate affixed to the frame adjacent to the seating area (Fig.1, #14a, #25a, and Col.2, Lines 19-26)
However, Johnson doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a plurality of solar panels disposed on the upper canopy, the solar panels charge a pair of batteries which power a hydraulic drive motor;
Nevertheless, Grossen discloses an electric cart for facilitating the harvesting of berries (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a plurality of solar panels disposed on the upper canopy, the solar panels charge a pair of batteries which power a hydraulic drive motor (Fig.1, and Paragraph 0132)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include the tiltable solar panels that recharge the batteries that provide power to the two drive motors, as taught by Grossen, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an electric cart that is designed to facilitate the harvesting of berries and other crops (Grossen, Paragraph 0002)
However, Johnson doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the harvesting containers include a plurality of interchangeable plates to accommodate a plurality of different types of the harvesting containers
Nevertheless, Wells discloses a moisture-resistant expendable shipping container of corrugated paperboard for storing and shipping plants (Abstract) and teaches the following:
the harvesting containers include a plurality of interchangeable plates to accommodate a plurality of different types of the harvesting containers (Col.2, lines 12-19, lines 27-32, Fig.8, Col.4, lines 21-30, Fig.9, Col.4, lines 39-46, and claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include different partition members of different height provided for interchangeable substitution in the tray, as taught by Wells, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to form containers of different height for accommodating plants of different height (Wells, Claim 5).
In re claim 3, Wells teaches the following:
wherein the harvest container holding plate comprises a plurality of circular apertures therethrough and the circular apertures are dimensioned to removably secure one of the harvesting containers therein (Fig.9, Fig.10, and Col.4, lines 39-52, motivation to combine has been provided supra)
In re claim 4, Wells teaches the following:
wherein the circular apertures are disposed in a regular grid pattern to evenly distribute weight across harvest container holding plate to support the harvesting containers for deposition of a plurality of harvested goods as the wheeled vehicle drives through one or more produce beds thereby increasing efficiency and simplicity (Fig.9, Fig.10, and Col.4, lines 39-52, motivation to combine has been provided supra)
In re claim 16, Grossen teaches the following:
an electric motor powered by the pair of batteries (Fig.22, and Paragraph 0156)
Claim(s) 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson, Grossen, Wells, and further in view of Canonge et al US 9,096,151 B2 (hence Canonge).
In re claim 2, the combination of Johnson, Grossen, Wells discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the seating area includes a cushioned sliding seat that slides along the horizontal support that is adapted to position the operator forward or rearward
Nevertheless, Canonge discloses a riding lawn care vehicle Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the seating area includes a cushioned sliding seat that slides along the horizontal support that is adapted to position the operator forward or rearward (Col.3, line 55 – col.4, line 9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include sliding of a seat base relative to the frame, as taught by Canonge, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a seat base that may be configured to be slidable in fore and aft directions (Canonge, Col.3, line 55 – col.4, line 9).
In re claim 5, Canonge teaches the following:
a footrest having a pair of opposing struts extending from a horizontal support upon which the cushioned sliding seat slides (Fig.1A, #42, and Col.3, lines 27-34, motivation to combine has been provided supra)
In re claim 7, Canonge teaches the following:
a steering device disposed on the frame, the steering device is operably connected to a plurality of wheels to allow the operator to adjust a direction of motion of the hydraulic mobile cart (Fig.1A, #30, and Col.3, lines 9-16)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson, Grossen, Wells, Canonge, and further in view of Lopez US 2012/0181095 A1 (hence Lopez).
In re claim 6, the combination of Johnson, Grossen, Wells, and Canonge discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the footrest further comprises a motion push button disposed thereon to actuate the hydraulic drive motor to drive the hydraulic mobile cart
Nevertheless, Lopez discloses an electric machine/tractor particularly intended for farming, gardening and landscaping (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the footrest further comprises a motion push button disposed thereon to actuate the hydraulic drive motor to drive the hydraulic mobile cart (Fig.1A, #20, and Paragraph 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include the foot pedal, as taught by Lopez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to direct the forward and reverse wheel speeds of the machine (Lopez, Paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson, Grossen, Wells, and further in view of Lopez US 2012/0181095 A1 (hence Lopez).
In re claim 8, the combination of Johnson, Grossen, and Wells discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a hand lever disposed within the seating area, the hand lever is configured to selectively control forward and reverse motion of the hydraulic mobile cart
Nevertheless, Lopez discloses an electric machine/tractor particularly intended for farming, gardening and landscaping (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a hand lever disposed within the seating area, the hand lever is configured to selectively control forward and reverse motion of the hydraulic mobile cart (Paragraph 0066)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include the lever, as taught by Lopez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to direct the forward and reverse wheel speeds of the machine (Lopez, Paragraph 0036).
In re claim 20, Lopez teaches the following:
a hydraulic pump electrically powered by the electric motor (Fig.6, and Paragraph 0037, the motivation to combine has been provided above)
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson, Grossen, Wells, and further in view of Freepons US 2022/0087086 A1 (hence Freepons).
In re claim 9, the combination of Johnson, Grossen, and Wells discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a directional control valve transmitting a plurality of hydraulic fluid
Nevertheless, Freepons discloses a automated planter apparatus for inserting a rootstock, rooting stock or plantings into the ground (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a directional control valve transmitting a plurality of hydraulic fluid (Paragraph 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include the directional valve, as taught by Freepons, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control flow of the hydraulic fluid (Freepons, Paragraph 0036).
In re claim 10, Freepons teaches the following:
wherein the directional control valve includes a shift stick to change the direction of flow of the hydraulic fluid (Paragraph 0036)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson, Grossen, Wells, and further in view of Lucas et al US 2008/0216458 A1 (hence Lucas).
In re claim 17, the combination of Johnson, Grossen, and Wells discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the electric motor is a TEFC electric motor that provides protection from one or more environmental elements
Nevertheless, Lucas discloses a housing configured with a working element; a motor configured for urging motion of the working element (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the electric motor is a TEFC electric motor that provides protection from one or more environmental elements (Paragraph 0071)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include the motor to include a fan, as taught by Lucas, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to promote cooling of the DC motor, thereby providing air circulation vent paths across the brushes and through the motor (Lucas, Paragraph 0071).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Johnson, Grossen, Wells, and further in view of Libra US 2019/0305588 A1 (hence Libra).
In re claim 18, the combination of Johnson, Grossen, and Wells discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the electric motor is a 12V DC electric motor
Nevertheless, Libra discloses a device for supplying electrical power including one or more photovoltaic panels (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the electric motor is a 12V DC electric motor (Paragraph 0034)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Johnson reference to include the 12V motor, as taught by Libra, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to power a vehicle using a motor and solar power (Libra, Paragraph 0033).
In re claim 19, Libra teaches the following:
wherein the pair of batteries are a pair of solar charged deep cycle batteries hooked in parallel (Fig.2, #14a, #14b, and Paragraph 0031)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669