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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 8-20 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.
It is unclear how in re claims 1 and 9—“the cab has a minimal interior height measured between the floor and the roof through the seat index point” and how in re claim 17 “wherein a minimal interior height is defined between the floor and the roof through the seat index point.”
From the drawings, it appears the cab’s minimal interior height—measured between the floor and roof—is located at a forward portion (see hatched line below in Figure A) of the cab not through the seat index point, due to the downward sloping roof.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Figure 6 for U.S. Patent Application 18/546,506.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase, “a seat and having a at least one seat index point referred to as SIP, established and defined in accordance with International standard ISO 5353:1995” is indefinite. Internal standards are not permanently fixed and are subject to change and/or being removed. As such the metes and bounds of the claim are not distinct. The examiner suggests either deleting the reference to the international standard and/or incorporating the language for the standard into the claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Claim 1—“the cab has a minimal interior height measured between the floor and the roof through the seat index point”
Claim 9—“the cab has a minimal interior height measured between the floor and the roof through the seat index point”
Claim 17—“wherein a minimal interior height is defined between the floor and the roof through the seat index point”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 16 and 17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 5,405,028 issued to Kasper in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0145875 issued to Haller et al.
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Kasper teaches in Figure 1 and respective portions of the specification of a load-handling vehicle comprising:
a chassis (10); and
a cab (14) supported by the chassis and including a floor, a roof, a lateral face defining an opening for accessing the cab (see Figure 1), and a seat (15).
Kasper is silent for teaching of a seat index point. Haller provides a teaching for the location of a seat index point (18; see also paragraph [0040]) with regards to a seat for a vehicle (1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Haller et al.’s teaching for the location of a seat index point, for locating the seat index point in the invention taught by Kasper; the location of the seat index point is a geometric measurement that does not require structural modification of Kasper. In the modified invention in Figure 1 of Kasper due to the flat roof and floor the cab (14) has a minimal interior height measured between the floor and the roof through the seat index point.
Regarding the limitation in re claim 9 that the cab defines a first distance between the floor and a ground surface that is less than 800 mm when the load-handling vehicle is positioned on flat horizontal ground, and a second distance between the seat index point and the floor of the cab that is at least 650 mm; in re claim 17 a first distance between the floor and a ground surface is less than the minimal interior height, and a second distance between the seat index point and the floor is less than a third distance between the seat index point and the roof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of Kasper as modied was filed to specify in re claim 9 a first distance between the floor and a ground surface to be less than 800 mm when the load-handling vehicle is positioned on flat horizontal ground, and a second distance between the seat index point and the floor of the cab that is at least 650 mm; and in re claim 17 a first distance between the floor and a ground surface is less than the minimal interior height, and a second distance between the seat index point and the floor is less than a third distance between the seat index point and the roof, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art
Regarding Claim 10, Kasper as modified is silent if the second distance between the seat index point and the floor of the cab is less than 1045 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of Kasper as modified was filed to specify the second distance between the seat index point and the floor of the cab is less than 1045 mm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, in Figure 1 Kasper shows the minimal interior height is plumb (due to the parallel roof and floor) with the at least one seat index point when the load-handling vehicle is positioned on a flat horizontal surface.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18 and 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper in view of Haller et al. and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0058747 issued to Kimura et al.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Kasper as modified disclose the claimed invention except for teaching of a step for accessing the floor of the cab.
Kumura et al. teach of a load-handling vehicle that includes a step (11b) located inside of a cab (6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to provide a step, as taught by Kimura et al., for the modified invention taught by Kasper. One would be motivated to provide a step to aide a user in entering and exiting the load handling vehicle.
Regarding Claims 12 and 20, in the modified invention of Kasper, Kimura et al. teaches the floor (11) and the step (11b) are offset relative (see Figure 3) to one another to form stairs.
Regarding Claim 13, in the modified invention of Kasper, Kimura et al. the step (11b) is located inside the cab (6).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasper in view of Haller et al. and Kimura et al., and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0244945 issued to Panneer et al.
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, Kasper as modified disclose the opening for accessing the cab (6) is partially defined by a lower edge (see Figure 3 of Kimura) but is silent a tread located along the lower edge.
Panneer et al. teach that it is known to provide a tread (tread plates 22) on steps (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a tread plate on the steps, as taught by Panneer, for the modified invention of Kasper. One would be motivated to provide a tread to prevent an operator from slipping while entering or leaving the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 15, Kasper as modified is silent if when the load-handling vehicle is positioned on a flat horizontal surface, a third distance between the lower edge and the ground surface is between 150 mm and 800 mm, inclusive. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of Kasper as modified was filed to specify when the load-handling vehicle is positioned on a flat horizontal surface, a third distance between the lower edge and the ground surface is between 150 mm and 800 mm, inclusive., discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in this case is the inclusion of: a load handling vehicle that includes a load-handling system with a lifting arm, movable between a raised and lower position, a cab with a lateral face equipped with a door and the other lateral face is adjacent to the lifting arm, when the lifting arm is in a lowered position, where a seat has a seat index point and the cab has a minimal interior height measured between the floor and the roof through greater than 1705 mm, a first distance between the floor and the ground that is less than 800 mm when the load-handling vehicle is positioned on flat horizontal ground, and a second distance between the seat index point and the floor of the cab that is at least equal to 650 mm, in combination with the other elements recited, not found in the prior art of record.
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 BRIAN L SWENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9-5).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
BRIAN SWENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/BRIAN L SWENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613