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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ELECTRIC WORK VEHICLE HAVING AN INVERTER HOUSING.
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 “travel device” of Claims 1 and 11 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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tottori et al. (US 2022/0234434; IDS) in view of Morimoto et al. (US 2018/0343737) and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 203504423; IDS).
In view 1, Torttori teaches (Fig. 1-8) an electric work vehicle (A) comprising: a battery (4); an electric motor (M) to receive electric power from the battery (4); an inverter (14) on a power supply path from the battery (4) to the electric motor (M); and a travel device (11) to be driven by the electric motor (M); the inverter (14) including an exterior case housing (21, 51, 52, 53); the exterior case (21, 51, 52, 53) including: a substantially rectangular box-shaped case body provided with an opening (opening above 21) above a space surrounded by a bottom plate portion (21) and a peripheral wall portion (51, 52) of the case body (21, 51, 52, 53); and the case body (21, 51, 52, 53) being provided with at least one reinforcing rib (52; Fig. 3) on an outer surface of the peripheral wall portion (51, 52),
Tottori does not teach a substrate provided with an inverter circuit; and a case lid operable to open and close the opening; the bottom plate portion being provided on an upper surface thereof, with a substrate stopping portion to fix the substrate, and the case lid being provided with at least one reinforcing rib on an inner surface thereof.
However, Morimoto teaches (Fig. 1-14) a substrate (400) provided with an inverter circuit (106); and a case lid (500) operable to open and close the opening; the bottom plate portion (300) being provided on an upper surface thereof, with a substrate stopping portion (330 with 360) to fix the substrate (400).
Therefore in view of Morimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create a structure which can account for heat generation and warpage from a substrate (Morimoto; [0032]).
Tottori as modified still does not teach the case lid being provided with at least one reinforcing rib on an inner surface thereof.
However, Zhou teaches (Fig. 1-3) a case lid (1) being provided with at least one reinforcing rib (11) on an inner surface thereof.
Therefore further in view of Zhou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to prevent the lid from becoming deformed (Zhou; [0029]).
In claim 8, Tottori as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, with the exception of wherein a cushioning material is between an upper end surface of the peripheral wall portion of the case body and an inner surface of a peripheral portion of the case lid.
However, Zhou further teaches wherein a cushioning material (silicone strip) is between an upper end surface of the peripheral wall portion of the case body (2) and an inner surface of a peripheral portion of the case lid (1; [0031]).
Therefore further in view of Zhou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to prevent liquid from entering the case (Zhou; [0031]).
In claim 9, Tottori as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the substrate stopping portion fixedly supports, on an upper surface of the bottom plate portion, a peripheral portion and a vicinity of a central portion of the substrate provided with the inverter circuit.
However, Morimoto further teaches wherein the substrate stopping portion (330) fixedly supports, on an upper surface of the bottom plate portion (lower surface of 300), a peripheral portion and a vicinity of a central portion of the substrate (400) provided with the inverter circuit (106).
Therefore further in view of Morimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create a structure which can account for heat generation and warpage from a substrate (Morimoto; [0032]).
In claim 10, Tottori as modified teaches the vehicle of claim 1, with the exception of wherein the substrate stopping portion includes a plurality of protruding pedestals to receive and fasten the substrate; and the protruding pedestals positioned adjacent to each other are connected by a coupling rib.
However, Morimoto further teaches wherein the substrate stopping portion (330) includes a plurality of protruding pedestals (613) to receive and fasten the substrate (400); and the protruding pedestals (613) positioned adjacent to each other are connected by a coupling rib (portion of 330 connecting 613 respectively).
Therefore further in view of Morimoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to create a structure which can account for heat generation and warpage from a substrate (Morimoto; [0032]).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tottori et al. (US 2022/0234434; IDS) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 203504423; IDS).
In claim 11, Tottori teaches (Fig. 1-8) an electric work vehicle (A) comprising: a battery (4); an electric motor (M) to receive electric power from the battery (4); an inverter (14) on a power supply path from the battery (4) to the electric motor (M); and a travel device (11) to be driven by the electric motor (M); the inverter (14) including an exterior case (21, 51, 52, 53); the exterior case (21, 51, 52, 53) including: a rectangular or substantially rectangular box-shaped case body (51, 52) open at an upper end thereof.
Tottori does not teach the exterior case housing a substrate provided with an inverter circuit; a case lid operable to open and close the open upper end; the case body and the case lid being coupled together; and the case lid being provided, on a lower peripheral portion thereof, with a lip portion located on an outer side of an upper end portion of the case body and lower than the upper end portion.
However, Zhou teaches (Fig. 1-3) a case lid (1) operable to open and close the open upper end (of 2); the case body (2) and the case lid (1) being coupled together; and the case lid (1) being provided, on a lower peripheral portion thereof, with a lip portion (vertical wall portion of 1) located on an outer side of an upper end portion of the case body (2) and lower than the upper end portion (upper portion of 1).
Therefore in view of Zhou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to prevent the lid from becoming deformed (Zhou; [0029]).
In claim 12, Totorri teaches the vehicle of claim 11, with the exception of wherein the upper end of the case body and the case lid contact each other at a point higher than the lower peripheral portion of the case lid; and the contact point includes a gasket therein.
However, Zhou further teaches wherein the upper end of the case body (2) and the case lid (1) contact each other at a point higher than the lower peripheral portion of the case lid (1); and the contact point includes a gasket (silicon strip; [0031]) therein.
Therefore further in view of Zhou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed invention, in order to prevent the lid from becoming deformed (Zhou; [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 13-15 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 cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the (in)dependent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the (in)dependent claim(s) with the allowable feature being:
Claim 2: “wherein the at least one reinforcing rib on the peripheral wall portion is at least one vertical rib extending in an up-down direction, and the at least one reinforcing rib on the inner surface of the case lid is at least one diagonal grid-shaped rib extending in a diagonal direction of the case lid.”
Claim 7: “wherein the bottom plate portion is provided, on a lower surface thereof, with a grid-shaped rib extending in the front-back direction and the left-right direction parallel or substantially parallel to extension directions of the peripheral wall portion in plan view.”
Claim 13: “wherein the case lid is provided, on a portion of an outer peripheral portion thereof, with a striking protrusion protruding outward.”
The examiner found no prior art satisfies all above conditions by itself or as combined during the prosecution period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wright et al. (US 2025/0140983) teaches an electric work vehicle including a battery housing and a plurality of ducts.
Bodepudi et al. (US 2025/0135956) teaches an electric work vehicle including a battery housing including a first battery housing portion and a second battery housing portion and an air chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834