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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the driver's seat is arranged to the right or left of the connecting element, so that the driver has a clear view" recited in claim 1 should be changed to "the driver's seat is arranged to the right or left of the connecting element,. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“the connecting element of the chassis, which connects the rear tractor part and the front tractor part to one another” in claim 1.
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.
"the front tractor part and the rear tractor part are connected with a single connecting element, preferably consisting of a profile or tube or several profiles or tubes lying close together. " - para. 14, lines 1-5 of PG publication of the subject specification
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 § 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 2 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation ", and the claim also recites "preferably at least 80 cm, above the driver's seat" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as the connecting element of the chassis, which connects the rear tractor part and the front tractor part to one another, is arranged at least 70 cm above the driver's seat.
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.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3874469 A ("Sjovall").
Claim 1: Sjovall teaches a tractor for agricultural use having a chassis (3), which connects a front tractor part (18) and a rear tractor part (17) to one another via a connecting element (11) (Fig. 1), a driver's seat (6, 7) in the region of the rear tractor part (Fig. 1), a drive (4; col. 1, lines 63-68 and col. 2, lines 1-6) and at least four wheels (1, 2) (Fig. 1), wherein the connecting element (11; col. 2, lines 19-23) of the chassis, which connects the rear tractor part and the front tractor part to one another, and extends essentially horizontally to the front tractor part (Fig. 1). wherein the front tractor part and the rear tractor part are connected with a single connecting element, which is arranged in the center between the rear wheels and in the center between the front wheels (Fig. 2) and the driver's seat (6, 7) is arranged to the right or left of the connecting element (col. 2, lines 15-16), to provide a clear view to a driver to the front and also to the side of an implement mounted in the center of the tractor and has an unobstructed view when driving straight ahead and to the side of the road (Fig. 2, show the location of the driver’s seat being to the side and Fig. 3 shows the front of the tractor assembly having an opening to obstruct the front view). But does not teach the connecting element of the chassis is arranged at least 60 cm above the driver's seat.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the connecting element of the chassis arranged at least 60 cm above the driver's seat, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The device of Sjovall would work for its intended purpose with the connecting element at least 60 cm above the driver's seat.
Claim 2: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Sjovall further teaches the tractor wherein the connecting element (11) of the chassis (3), which connects the rear tractor part (17) and the front tractor part (18) to one another, is arranged at least 70 cm, above the driver's seat. But does not teach the connecting element of the chassis is arranged at least 70 cm above the driver's seat.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the connecting element of the chassis arranged at least 70 cm above the driver's seat, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The device of Sjovall would work for its intended purpose with the connecting element at least 70 cm above the driver's seat.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3874469 A ("Sjovall") in view of US 20190178350 A1 ("Steinberger").
Claim 6: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The cited prior art does not teach the tractor wherein the wheels are individually suspended and individually driven.
However, Steinberger teaches the tractor wherein the wheels (62, 72) are individually suspended and individually driven (Fig. 1; para. 40, lines 16-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the cited prior art with the features of Steinberger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Steinberger teaches that the “Vehicle 10 may be configured for a broad variety of applications, including but not limited to transportation (e.g., consumer, commercial, etc.), military (e.g., troop transports, supply transports, tanks, etc.), emergency response (e.g., fire apparatuses, ambulances, police vehicles, etc.), agriculture (e.g., tractors, round bailers, harvesters, etc.)” (para. 31, lines 1-7) and “front axle driveshaft 66 and rear axle driveshaft 76 are configured to transport power from first electromagnetic device 40 and second electromagnetic device 50 to tires 62 and tires 72, respectively.” (para. 27, lines 17-20)
Claim 7: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Steinberger further teaches the tractor wherein pairs of rear wheels (72) or pairs of front wheels (62) are each connected via an axle (60, 70) and are jointly driven via the connecting axle (66, 76) (Fig. 1; para. 40, lines 16-21).
Claim 8: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Steinberger further teaches the tractor wherein at least one electric motor (40, 50) is provided as the drive (Fig. 1).
Claim 9: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Steinberger further teaches the tractor wherein the electric motor (40, 50) acts on the rear wheels (72) (Fig. 1; via 76; para. 36, lines 6-10).
Claim 10: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Steinberger further teaches the tractor wherein an all-wheel drive is provided (para. 40, lines 16-21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614