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 7 objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should begin with a lowercase “t”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamiya (JP 2003-341799).
In re claim 1, Kamiya discloses a construction machine (2) comprising: a vehicle body (6); a tank (14) disposed in the vehicle body, the tank accommodating a liquid (fuel); and a sensor (25) including a detection portion (25a) configured to detect the liquid, the sensor being supported by the tank (as shown in Figure 4), the tank including a reduced width section formed to reduce a width of a predetermined range including the detection portion (sensor mounted in reduced width upper section as shown in Figure 4).
In re claim 2, Kamiya further discloses wherein the sensor is supported on a first side surface (front left) of the tank (as shown in Figure 4), the detection portion protrudes from the first side surface toward a second side surface (back right surface where reference 15 is labeled in Figure 4) facing the first side surface, and the reduced width section is formed between the first side surface and the second side surface (as shown in Figure 4).
In re claim 3, Kamiya further discloses further comprising; a member (top rectangular side of tank 15) disposed on the second side surface (connects to second side surface of tank), the member forming the reduced width section (top of tank “forms”, at least in part, the reduced width section since it defines the uppermost narrow width).
In re claim 7, Kamiya further discloses wherein the reduced width section is formed so that the width of the tank is reduced in a left to right direction of the vehicle body (tank labeled as 14 with sloped surface being on the side of the vehicle as shown in Figure 1).
In re claim 8, Kamiya further discloses wherein the sensor is disposed in a center of the first side surface in a horizontal direction (as shown in Figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya in view of Oxley (US 7,940,165).
In re claim 9, Kamiya further discloses wherein the vehicle body includes a cab (10), but does not disclose a monitor disposed in the cab, and a control section configured to issue an alert using the monitor when detecting that the sensor has detected exposure from a liquid surface based on a detection value of the sensor.
Oxley, however, does disclose a low fuel warning system (10) comprising a monitor and a control section (200) configured to issue an alert (audible alarm 7) using the monitor when detecting that the sensor (30) has detected exposure from a liquid surface based on a detection value of the sensor (as shown in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention such that the vehicle of Kamiya further comprised the low fuel warning system of Oxley mounted in the cab to advantageously warn the user that the fuel level is low.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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 specific limitations of “wherein the member includes a first portion protruding from the second side surface toward the first side surface, a second portion disposed below the first portion, the second portion protruding from the second side surface toward the first side surface, and a third portion joining an end on a side of the first side surface of the first portion and an end on a side of the first side surface of the second portion, the third portion facing the detection portion” is not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art of record in the examiner’s opinion. The Examiner notes that the prior art does not disclose a tank with a separate member having two portions protruding from the second side surface toward the first side surface with a third portion facing the detection portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach tanks of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MICHAEL R STABLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611