DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the amendment filed for application 18/640,511 on July 30, 2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 2, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 2, 2026. These drawings are approved.
35 U.S.C. 112 f)
Claim limitation “first means for attaching” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “attaching” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: on page 10, first means for attaching is via an adhesive.
Claim limitation “second means for attaching” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “attaching” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: in pages 12-14, second means for attaching are via a bracket with a fastener or just a fastener.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 15, “a cab frame” should be replaced with “the cab frame”. The limitation is already introduced on lines 2-3 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8-9, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage (US 6286891; see annotated Fig. 4 below for some references) in view of MHSA (article), in further view of De Paoli (US 20010030449).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Gage teaches a window assembly for use in a vehicle having a cab 14 with a cab frame 10 and windows 56, the window assembly comprising: a metal frame 58 (Col. 3, line 59) having an opening therein (Fig. 2/4), a window pane attachment portion (Fig. 4), and an outer peripheral attachment portion spaced laterally from the window pane attachment portion (Fig. 4), a window pane 56 having first and second surfaces and an outer peripheral face, the first surface having an outer peripheral portion; attaching the outer peripheral portion of the first surface of the window pane 56 to the window pane attachment portion of the metal frame 58 so as to leave the outer peripheral attachment portion exposed with respect to the window pane (Fig. 4); and second means for attaching 52 the outer peripheral attachment portion of the frame 58 to the cab frame 10, the means independent of the window pane so that the window pane does not develop cracks by direct attachment of the window pane to the cab frame. Gage lacks the specific teaching wherein the window panel is made from a polymeric material and also of a first means for attaching the outer peripheral portion of the first surface of the window pane to the window pane attachment portion. De Paoli teaches a window assembly comprising: a cab 3 with a cab frame and windows, the window assembly comprising: a frame 2 having an opening therein and an outer peripheral attachment portion, a window pane 1 made from a polymeric material (paragraph 26) and having first and second surfaces and an outer peripheral face, the first surface having an outer peripheral portion; and first means for attaching 4 (adhesive) the outer peripheral portion of the first surface of the window pane to a window pane attachment portion of the frame so as to leave the outer peripheral attachment portion exposed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Gage to employ a window pane made of a polymeric material and also a first means for attaching the window pane to the window pane attachment portion of the frame in order to reduce weight and fragility of the window and also firmly secure the window pane to the frame. Gage also lacks the specific teaching wherein the window is window assembly for use in off-highway equipment designed for material handling, the off-highway equipment having a cab with a cab frame and windows. MSHA teaches a window assembly for use in off-highway equipment designed for material handling (bulldozer), the off-highway equipment having a cab with a cab frame and windows (Figure), the window assembly comprising: a window pane (glass). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Gage to employ the window assembly in off-highway equipment in view of MHSA in order to employ an off-highway equipment with a window assembly that can be removed for both cleaning and substitution/replacement (Col. 1, lines 40-43). With regard to claim 2, Gage and De Paoli teach the assembly, wherein the polymeric material is an acrylic material (paragraph 26, thermoplastic film). With regard to claim 3, Gage and De Paoli teach the assembly, wherein the first attaching means comprises an adhesive 4 positioned between a surface of the frame 58/2 adjacent to the outer peripheral attachment portion of the frame and the outer peripheral portion of the window pane 56/(Fig. 5). With regard to claim 8, Gage, MSHA and De Paoli teach a method of installing windows on the cab of off-highway equipment (bulldozer) designed for material handling to minimize window cracking comprising: a) providing an off-highway equipment designed for material handling (bulldozer), the off-highway equipment including a cab (Figure/3)with a cab frame; and b) installing at least one window assembly according to claim 1 to portions of the cab frame, the at least one window assembly minimizing cracking of the window pane thereof by at least the second attaching means. With regard to claim 9, MSHA, Gage and De Paoli teach the method, wherein the off-highway equipment is a bulldozer (bulldozer). With regard to claim 11, Gage, MSHA and De Paoli teach a method of moving coal in a coal (coal) surge pile (surge pile), wherein the coal surge pile includes a conveyor (feeder) at a bottom portion thereof, the method comprising: providing an off-highway equipment (bulldozer) designed for handling coal in the coal surge pile, the off-highway equipment including a cab with a cab frame (Figure/3), and at least one window assembly according to claim 1 attached to portions of the cab frame; and moving coal with the off-highway equipment. With regard to claim 12, Gage and MSHA teaches the method, wherein the off-highway equipment is a bulldozer (bulldozer). With regard to claim 13, Gage, MSHA and De Paoli teach in an off-highway equipment designed for material handling (bulldozer), the off-highway equipment including a cab (Figure;14) and cab frame (10), and windows (windows/56) attached to the cab frame, the improvement comprising at least one window assembly according to claim 1 attached to portions of the cab frame. With regard to claim 14, Gage and MSHA teaches the equipment, wherein the off-highway equipment is a bulldozer (bulldozer). With regard to claim 15, Gage, MSHA and De Paoli teach the equipment, wherein a plurality of window assemblies (56 (Fig. 3);Figure)are attached to portions of the cab frame. With regard to claim 20, Gage teaches the assembly, wherein the outer attachment portion includes a flange having a through hole 60 therein and the second means 57 for attaching the outer peripheral portion of the metal frame uses the through hole (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gage, MSHA and De Paoli as applied to claims 8 and 13, respectively, above, and further in view of Goddard (US 8016345). With regard to claims 10 and 16, Gage, MSHA and De Paoli teach the method/equipment, but lack the specific teaching wherein the cab frame is equipped with at least one wiper blade assembly designed for contact with the at least one window assembly. Goddard teaches similar method/equipment, wherein an off-highway equipment comprises a cab 36 with a cab frame and a window assembly 44/46; Col. 6, lines 64-65), said cab frame is equipped with at least one wiper blade assembly (Fig. 9) designed for contact with the at least one window assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Gage, MSHA and De Paoli to employ a cab frame equipped with wipers for contact with the window assembly in view of Goddard with reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a clearer view when during condensation or when the windows are dirty.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please Note: Applicant’s arguments with regard to the Legrand (US 6347491) component 5 (gasket) unable to be made of metal has been considered and is persuasive.
Also, the only teachings from De Paoli (US 20010030449) that are being incorporated into Gage are the material of the window pane and the first attachment means (adhesive).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the window assembly as claimed, and particularly wherein the metal frame has a t-shape in transverse cross section, the metal frame further comprising a base with a leg extending from the base and between first and second portions of the base, the first portion of the base and one side of the leg forming the window pane attachment portion of the metal frame for window pane attachment, the second portion of the base being the outer peripheral attachment portion of the metal frame for attachment to the cab frame, and including the remaining structure of claims 6 and 18, respectively. Claim 7 and 17 depend on claim 6. Claim 19 depends on claim 18.
Please Note: should applicant amend claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 6, applicant can amend claim 7 to depend upon claim 1 and cancel claims 18-19 (since claims 18-19 would be repeating the limitations of claims 1 and 7 (as amended)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colleran (US 2332060) has been cited to show a similar window assembly comprising: a cab 5, a frame 8, a window pane 2, a cork/rubber insert 22 and a second attachment means 6.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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 at 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 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights