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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/601,511 filed on 3/11/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 13-15, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009120046 to Yamada (applicant cited reference) in view of JP 2003211942 to Hayashi (applicant cited reference).
Claim 1
Yamada discloses in Figs 1-6,
A vehicle comprising: a vehicle body (e.g. 15); an operator cab (e.g. 18) having a footwell (e.g. 30 & 21), the footwell including a floor surface (e.g. 21); an upper opening (e.g. 22) defined in the floor surface; and a chute (e.g. 33) having a top end (e.g. 23) and a bottom end (e.g. 29), the chute aligned below the upper opening; Yamada does not explicitly disclose that at least a portion of the floor surface ramps upwardly relative to the upper opening and the bottom end of the chute extends to a lower opening in a bottom surface of the vehicle body. Hayashi however, teaches a ramped surface (e.g. 18) and a lower opening (e.g. 18b). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to modify Yamada to have a ramped surface as taught by Hayashi for the benefit of having fluid and debris flow away from the operator pedal to ensure the pedals operate efficiently and without restriction.
Claim 3
The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a selectively removable plug (e.g. 24, Yamada) corresponding to the upper opening.
Claim 4
The vehicle of claim 3 wherein the upper opening includes a locking mechanism (e.g. 22 with 27 locks the plug in place, Yamada) to selectively couple the plug to the upper opening.
Claim 9
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein a space (e.g. 25, Yamada) is provided between the top end of the chute and the upper opening in the floor surface.
Claim 10
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the upper opening is located adjacent an operator seat platform (e.g. 20, Yamada) of the vehicle and laterally toward one of a left side (see Fig 4, Yamada) or a right side of the vehicle.
Claim 13
The vehicle of claim 1 wherein the chute is provided in the form of a U-channel (e.g. 33, Yamada) coupled to a side panel (Fig 4, Yamada) of the operator cab.
Claim 14
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the floor surface includes a front section (e.g. 30, Yamada) and a rear section (e.g. 21, Yamada), the front section ramping upwardly from the rear section (Yamada in view of Hayashi).
Claim 15
The vehicle of claim 14, wherein the rear section is substantially parallel to a level ground surface when the vehicle is resting on the level ground surface (see Yamada Fig 4).
Claim 19
Yamada discloses in Figs 1-6,
A vehicle comprising: a floor surface (e.g. 21) defining an upper opening (e.g. 22), wherein the floor surface is at least partially sloped relative to a level ground surface when the vehicle is resting on the level ground surface (e.g. Yamada in view of Hayashi teaches the sloped surface as modified); a chute (e.g. 23 & 33) in fluid communication with the upper opening; and a bottom surface (e.g. 28) having a lower opening (e.g. 26) in fluid communication with the chute.
Claim 20
The vehicle of claim 19, wherein further comprising a cover plate selectively removably engaged with the chute, wherein the cover plate and the chute form a liquid-permeable seal (Hayashi teaches forming a cover plate and liquid seal via 21 & 18b, Figs 6a-6c).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009120046 to Yamada (applicant cited reference) in view of JP 2003211942 to Hayashi (applicant cited reference) in view of JP ‘60033170 to Yoshino (applicant cited reference).
Claim 2
Yamada in view of Hayashi teaches a vehicle with a vehicle body, operator cab with footwell, an upper opening and a chute. Yamada in view of Hayashi however does not explicitly disclose that the footwell has raised portions that define at least one raised surface plane, and the raised surface plane is nonparallel to the floor surface. Yoshino however, teaches raised portions (e.g. 13) on the footwell (e.g. 2). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to modify Yamada in view of Hayashi to have raised portions on the footwell, as taught by Yoshino, for the benefit of channeling fluid towards the chute to prevent buildup of fluids near the operator’s pedals.
Claims 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009120046 to Yamada (applicant cited reference) in view of JP 2003211942 to Hayashi (applicant cited reference) in view of U.S. Patent 11,939,975 to Patoskie.
Claim 5
Yamada in view of Hayashi teaches a vehicle with a vehicle body, operator cab with footwell, an upper opening and a chute. Yamada in view of Hayashi however does not explicitly disclose that the plug forms a fluid tight seal with the floor surface. Patoskie teaches a plug (e.g. 170) which creates a fluid tight seal (with 108). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to modify the plug of Yamada in view of Hayashi with the fluid tight seal taught by Patoskie, for the benefit of preventing fluid from escaping or entering the footwell.
Claim 6
The vehicle of claim 3, wherein the plug includes a handle (e.g. 208, Patoskie).
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009120046 to Yamada (applicant cited reference) in view of JP 2003211942 to Hayashi (applicant cited reference) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0087163 to Lasly.
Claim 7
Yamada in view of Hayashi teaches a vehicle with a vehicle body, operator cab with footwell, an upper opening and a chute. Yamada in view of Hayashi however does not explicitly disclose that the lower opening has a selectively removable cover plate. Lasly however teaches a selectively removable cover plate (e.g. 20). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to modify Yamada in view of Hayashi to have a removable cover plate as taught by Lasly, for the benefit of easily removing fluid and debris from the chute.
Claim 8
The vehicle of claim 7, wherein the cover plate permits liquids to escape the chute (e.g. via 24 and removing the valve, Lasly).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009120046 to Yamada (applicant cited reference) in view of JP 2003211942 to Hayashi (applicant cited reference) in view of U.S. Patent 7,523,804 to Tanaka et al.
Claim 11
Yamada in view of Hayashi teaches a vehicle with a vehicle body, operator cab with footwell, an upper opening and a chute. Yamada in view of Hayashi however does not explicitly disclose that the chute includes a plurality of walls, and at least one of the plurality of walls is adjacent a fuel tank of the vehicle. Tanaka however, teaches the fuel tank (e.g. 85) adjacent the operator’s seat (e.g. 87). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to modify Yamada in view of Hayashi to have the fuel tank adjacent the operator’s seat as taught by Tanaka for the benefit of having a compact design of the work vehicle.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009120046 to Yamada (applicant cited reference) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0087163 to Lasly.
Claim 16
Yamada discloses in Figs 1-6,
A method for cleaning a footwell (e.g. 21) of a work vehicle comprising: removing a plug (e.g. 22) from an upper opening (e.g. 23) defined in a floor surface (e.g. 21) of the footwell; supplying liquid into the footwell to move debris into the upper opening; Yamada does not explicitly disclose removing a selectively removable cover plate from a lower opening of the work vehicle; and coupling the plug to the upper opening. Lasly however teaches a selectively removable cover plate (e.g. 20). Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to modify Yamada in view of Hayashi to have a removable cover plate as taught by Lasly, for the benefit of easily removing fluid and debris from the opening.
Claim 17
The method of claim 16 wherein the liquid is water (Lasly abstract).
Claim 18
The method of claim 16, further comprising unlocking a locking mechanism (e.g. 22 with 27 locks the plug in place, Yamada) on the plug to remove the plug from the upper opening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655