DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/28/2023 has been fully considered.
Priority
The priority claim to PCT/CN2022/118335 filed on 9/13/2022 is acknowledged.
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites the limitations "the two light- emitting surfaces intersect at a region where the lighting panel is configured such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspects of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas rear of the machine" (emphasis added). These limitations are indefinite because this claim depends from claim 9 which recites the limitation, “wherein each of the forward and rear quarter lighting panels define two light-emitting surfaces.” Thus, when claim 10 says, “the two light-emitting surfaces” it is unclear if it is referring to both the front and rear quarter lighting panels, or only the rear quarter lighting panel. This ambiguity is sharpened by the fact that the second surface is “exposed to view from areas rear of the machine.” Thus, it is not clear if the forward quarter lighting panel must have a surface exposed to the rear, or if only the rear quarter lighting panel needs such a surface. Correction is required. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 10 is regarded below as though only the rear quarter lighting panel has the two lighting surfaces claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over Dimsey (US 20180347803 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dimsey teaches an outdoor power machine (110 “snowthrower” taught by figure 1), comprising:
a chassis including main frame rails (taught by figures 2-5 and 8);
two or more drive wheel assemblies physically mounted to the chassis (114 “a pair of drive wheels” taught by figures 1-5), each drive wheel assembly coupled to an electric motor (taught by paragraph 39 “While not shown in FIG. 6, in other embodiments, engine 212 may be replaced by any other suitable powerhead, such one or more electric motors”);
an electrical power pack configured to supply electric energy to the electric motors (taught by paragraph 39 “Alternatively and/or additionally, a starter battery housing 218 may be present to accept a starter battery (not shown) for utilization of an electric starting motor”);
one or more steer wheels (taught by figure 8); and
a lighting package mounted on the machine such that the lighting package is visible from at least one of: the forward and rear aspects of the machine, and at least one of: the left and right aspects of the machine (132 “one rear lighting device”, 136 “one right lighting device”, 140 “one left side lighting device”, 144 “one forward-projecting lighting device” taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey also teaches wherein the lighting package is configured to indicate the status of the machine (taught by paragraph 27 “Alternatively, in some embodiments, a portion of light emitted by rear lighting device(s) 132 may be directed substantially upward and/or laterally outward so as to illuminate one or more indicators on control panel 121. For example, indicators for drive direction and/or speed (i.e., “F” for forward, “R” for rear, “1” for slow, etc.) may be cut out of control panel 121 or otherwise made to be transparent, thereby allowing light emitted by rear lighting device(s) 132 to illuminate the indicators”).
Regarding claim 14, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey also teaches wherein the machine includes batteries and the status is indicative of whether the electrical power pack is charged (taught by claim 8 “wherein the at least one power source is at least one of a battery”).
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 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) 2-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimsey (US 20180347803 A1) in view of Elgh (US 10744927 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the lighting package includes at least one forward quarter lighting panel.
Elgh teaches wherein the lighting package includes at least one forward quarter lighting panel (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Therefore, 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 front light of Dimsey (144 “forward-projecting lighting device” taught in figure 1) with the quarter lighting panel of Elgh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the quarter lighting panel would allow Dimsey to illuminate the sides of the outdoor power machine.
Regarding claim 3, Dimsey in view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the forward quarter lighting panel defines two light-emitting surfaces (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4). ).
Regarding claim 4, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 3, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the two light- emitting surfaces intersect at a region where the lighting panel bends and twists such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspect of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas forward of the machine (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the lighting package includes at least one rear quarter lighting panel.
Elgh teaches wherein the lighting package includes at least one rear quarter lighting panel (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Therefore, 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 rear light of Dimsey (132 “rear lighting device” taught in figure 1) with the quarter lighting panel of Elgh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the quarter lighting panel would allow Dimsey to illuminate the sides of the outdoor power machine.
Regarding claim 6, Dimsey in view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the rear quarter lighting panel defines two light-emitting surfaces (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Dimsey in view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 6, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the two light- emitting surfaces intersect at a region where the lighting panel bends such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspect of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas rear of the machine (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the lighting package includes at least one forward quarter lighting panel and at least one rear quarter lighting panel.
Elgh teaches wherein the lighting package includes at least one quarter lighting panel (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Therefore, 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 forward and rear lights of Dimsey (144 “forward-projecting lighting device,” and 132 “rear lighting device” taught in figure 1) with the quarter lighting panel of Elgh with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the quarter lighting panel would allow Dimsey to illuminate the sides of the outdoor power machine.
Regarding claim 9, Dimsey in view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 8, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein each of the forward and rear quarter lighting panels define two light-emitting surfaces (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dimsey in view of Elgh teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 9, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Elgh also teaches wherein the two light- emitting surfaces intersect at a region where the lighting panel is configured such that a first surface is generally perpendicular to view from the left or right aspects of the machine and a second surface is generally perpendicular and exposed to view from areas rear of the machine (408 “second light source” taught by figure 4).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimsey (US 20180347803 A1) in view of Iwasaki (US 11084416 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the status is indicated by blinking lights.
Iwasaki teaches wherein the status is indicated by blinking lights (150 “ID lamp” taught by column 11 lines 14-16 “the display of the ID lamp 150 controlled in the second mode in which the ID lamp 150 is caused to blink in green”).
Therefore, 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 lights of Dimsey to indicate a status by blinking as taught by Iwasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by flashing lights, a large range of information can be clearly communicated to users and non-users within sight of the lights.
Regarding claim 13, Dimsey teaches the outdoor power machine of claim 11, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above.
Dimsey does not teach wherein the status is indicated by a predetermined color of light.
Iwasaki teaches wherein the status is indicated by a predetermined color of light (150 “ID lamp” taught by column 11 lines 14-16 “the display of the ID lamp 150 controlled in the second mode in which the ID lamp 150 is caused to blink in green”).
Therefore, 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 lights of Dimsey to indicate a status by a color as taught by Iwasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because implementing a colored light allows information to be clearly communicated to users and non-users within sight of the light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613