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 .
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 17 December 2025. Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 17 November 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 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
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota JP2010065445A (English Translation) in view of Kaneda (US 20210129682 A1) in view of Arai JPH0827835A (English Translation) in further view of Seo KR20140119911A (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Ota teaches An electric construction machine comprising (see at least [¶01]):
an automotive vehicle body (A vehicle body is part of the electric working machine. see at least [¶015]);
and a working mechanism disposed on the front side of the vehicle body, the vehicle body including (A working mechanism/front on the front side of the vehicle body. see at least [¶015-018]):
an electric motor serving as a power source (An electric motor as the power source for the machine. see at least [¶016 and 018]);
a camera for monitoring the surroundings of the vehicle body (A camera for monitoring the surrounding of the vehicle body. see at least [¶022]);
and a monitor for displaying an image captured by the camera (A monitor/display that displays the image of the camera, the camera is attached at a vehicle body position that is higher that where the cable connects to the power port and the image includes where the cable connects and the surroundings. see at least [¶018, 022-024, 028, 033 and FIG 6]).
Ota does not explicitly teach a battery for storing electric power to be supplied to the electric motor; and a power feeding port to which a power feeding cable for supplying the electric power to the electric motor or the battery is connected.
Shall be noted that Ota teaches to that the electric motor is powered by an external power source via a power cable with the implication that the power cable connects to a power port. (see at least [“[¶018] As shown in FIG. 3, the electric motor 24 accommodated in the power unit chamber 26 is composed of, for example, an electric motor driven by a three-phase alternating current, and is supplied with power from an external power supply 50 via a power cable 51 and a control device 52.….”) For more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Kaneda.
Kaneda does teach a battery for storing electric power to be supplied to the electric motor (A battery stores electric power that is supplied to the electric motor. see at least [¶027-028 & Fig 1]);
and a power feeding port to which a power feeding cable for supplying the electric power to the electric motor or the battery is connected (A power supply port for which a power cable can be connected to for giving electric power to the electric motor or battery. see at least [¶027-028]).
Kaneda would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of electric construction machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota to use the technique of having a battery for storing electric power to be supplied to the electric motor; and a power feeding port to which a power feeding cable for supplying the electric power to the electric motor or the battery is connected as taught by Kaneda. Doing so would lead to improved provision of electric power either directly or through a battery for an electric machine (see at least [¶07]).
Ota and Kaneda do not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle body is provided with an operator's seat, a working lamp that is positioned to be closer to backward than the operator's seat to display that the vehicle body or the working mechanism is in the middle of operating, and a counterweight is positioned to be closer to the rear side than the operator's seat, the working lamp projects upward from the upper surface of the counterweight.
However, Arai does teach wherein the vehicle body is provided with an operator's seat, a working lamp that is positioned to be closer to backward than the operator's seat to display that the vehicle body or the working mechanism is in the middle of operating, and a counterweight is positioned to be closer to the rear side than the operator's seat, the working lamp projects upward from the upper surface of the counterweight (The vehicle body has an operators seat/cabin, a working lamp/light is positioned to be closer to the backward section of the operators seat, the working lamp would project upwards from the surface of the body that has the counterweight. The light would obviously indicate that the vehicle is operating when it is on. see at least [¶09-010 & FIG 3]).
Arai would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of hydraulic shovels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota and Kaneda to use the technique of having the vehicle body is provided with an operator's seat, a working lamp that is positioned to be closer to backward than the operator's seat to display that the vehicle body or the working mechanism is in the middle of operating, and a counterweight is positioned to be closer to the rear side than the operator's seat, the working lamp projects upward from the upper surface of the counterweight as taught by Arai. Doing so would lead to an improved compact hydraulic excavator by simplifying and saving space in the configuration of the excavator (see at least [¶06]).
Ota, Kaneda and Arai do not explicitly teach and the camera is attached on the vehicle body in a position higher than the power feeding port and the working lamp to capture an image of the power feeding port and the working lamp as well as the surroundings of the vehicle body.
However, Seo does teach teach and the camera is attached on the vehicle body in a position higher than the power feeding port and the working lamp to capture an image of the power feeding port and the working lamp as well as the surroundings of the vehicle body (The camera is attached to the rear of the vehicle body at a highest possible height due to being attached to the top of the cab. The camera is able to capture the rear of the vehicle body along with the surroundings of the vehicle. It would be obvious that the placement of the camera in Seo would allow for the capture of the working lamp and power feeding port found in the previously cited arts. see at least [¶09, 020, 023 & FIG 1])
Seo would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of monitoring the rear of an excavator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda and Arai to use the technique of having the camera is attached on the vehicle body in a position higher than the power feeding port and the working lamp to capture an image of the power feeding port and the working lamp as well as the surroundings of the vehicle body as taught by Seo. Doing so would lead to an improved efficient and safe operation of an excavator by being able to confirm the rear view using an onboard camera (see at least [¶047]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Seo teaches wherein the camera is disposed toward the backward of the vehicle body in a position closer to the front side than the power feeding port and the working lamp to capture an image of the power feeding port and the working lamp as well as the backward of the vehicle body (The camera is attached to the rear of the vehicle body at a highest possible height due to being attached to the top of the cab. The camera is able to capture the rear of the vehicle body along with the surroundings of the vehicle. It would be obvious that the placement of the camera in Seo would allow for the capture of the working lamp, backward of the body and the power feeding port found in the previously cited arts. see at least [¶09, 020, 023 & FIG 1])
Seo would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of monitoring the rear of an excavator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda and Arai to use the technique of having the camera is disposed toward the backward of the vehicle body in a position closer to the front side than the power feeding port and the working lamp to capture an image of the power feeding port and the working lamp as well as the backward of the vehicle body as taught by Seo. Doing so would lead to an improved efficient and safe operation of an excavator by being able to confirm the rear view using an onboard camera (see at least [¶047]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Ota teaches a cable support member that is disposed on the rear side of the vehicle body to project upward from an upper surface of the vehicle body and support the power feeding cable (A cable support member on the rear of the vehicle body that projects upward and supports the power cable. see at least [¶019-023 & Fig 1]).
Furthermore, Seo teaches wherein the camera is disposed toward the backward of the vehicle body in a position closer to the front side than the power feeding port and is disposed in a position higher than the cable support member to capture an image of the power feeding port, the working lamp and the cable support member as well as the backward of the vehicle body (The camera is attached to the rear of the vehicle body at a highest possible height due to being attached to the top of the cab. The camera is able to capture the rear of the vehicle body along with the surroundings of the vehicle. It would be obvious that the placement of the camera in Seo would allow for the capture of the working lamp, backward of the body and the power feeding port found in the previously cited arts. see at least [¶09, 020, 023 & FIG 1])
Seo would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of monitoring the rear of an excavator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda and Arai to use the technique of the camera is disposed toward the backward of the vehicle body in a position closer to the front side than the power feeding port and is disposed in a position higher than the cable support member to capture an image of the power feeding port, the working lamp and the cable support member as well as the backward of the vehicle body as taught by Seo. Doing so would lead to an improved efficient and safe operation of an excavator by being able to confirm the rear view using an onboard camera (see at least [¶047]).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota JP2010065445A (English Translation) in view of Kaneda (US 20210129682 A1) in view of Arai JPH0827835A (English Translation) in further view of Seo KR20140119911A (English Translation) in further view of Tsumura JP2004225355A (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Ota teaches the camera captures an image of the power feeding port, the working lamp, and the one end and the other end of the relay cable as well as the surroundings of the vehicle body (The camara captures an image of the where the cable connects (port), working lamp, as well as the surroundings and where the cable connects to the power source. It would be obvious that Figure 6 shows this configuration along with where the cable is connected to the vehicle body. The secondary reference of Kaneda does have the port in the expected location which could be included in the body of the primary reference. Finally, the relay cable from the third reference Tsumura would also be obvious to include. see at least [¶018, 022-024, 028, 033 and FIG 6]).
Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo do not explicitly teach a relay cable having one end connected to a connecting port of the power feeding cable and the other end connected to the power feeding port, wherein the power feeding port is connected via the relay cable to the power feeding cable.
However, Tsumura does teach a relay cable having one end connected to a connecting port of the power feeding cable and the other end connected to the power feeding port (A relay cable that has one end for the connecting port of the power cable and another end for connecting to the power feeding port. see at least [¶011-020]),
wherein the power feeding port is connected via the relay cable to the power feeding cable (The power feeding port is connected to the power cable via the relay cable. see at least [¶011-020]).
Tsumura would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of electric work machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo to use the technique of having a relay cable having one end connected to a connecting port of the power feeding cable and the other end connected to the power feeding port, wherein the power feeding port is connected via the relay cable to the power feeding cable as taught by Tsumura. Doing so would lead to a much simpler way of managing electric connection for an electric machine (see at least [¶012]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ota, Kaneda, Arai, Seo and Tsumura teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, furthermore, Ota teaches cable support member that is disposed on the rear side of the vehicle body to project upward from an upper surface of the vehicle body and support…cable (A cable support member on the rear of the vehicle body that projects upward and supports the power cable. see at least [¶019-023 & Fig 1])
the camera is disposed toward the backward of the vehicle body in a position closer to the front side than the one end and the other end of the relay cable and is disposed in a position higher than the cable support member to capture an image of the power feeding port, the working lamp, the one end and the other end of the relay cable and the cable support member as well as the backward of the vehicle body (The camara captures an image of the where the cable connects (port), working lamp, as well as the surroundings from a higher position than where the cable rests. It would be obvious that Figure 6 shows this configuration along with where the cable is connected to the vehicle body. The secondary reference of Kaneda does have the port in the expected location which could be included in the body of the primary reference. Finally, the relay cable from the third reference Tsumura would also be obvious to include. see at least [¶018, 022-024, 028, 033 and FIG 6]).
Furthermore, Tsumura does teach and support the relay cable (A relay cable that has one end for the connecting port of the power cable and another end for connecting to the power feeding port. see at least [¶011-020]),
Tsumura would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of electric work machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo to use the technique of having a relay cable as taught by Tsumura. Doing so would lead to a much simpler way of managing electric connection for an electric machine (see at least [¶012]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota JP2010065445A (English Translation) in view of Kaneda (US 20210129682 A1) in view of Arai JPH0827835A (English Translation) in further view of Seo KR20140119911A (English Translation) in further view of Ryu JP2017014687A (English Translation).
Regarding Claim 7, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Furthermore, Ota teaches and the camera captures an image of the arm part (A camera can be placed to capture images of the arm part. It would be obvious that Figure 6 shows this configuration along with where the cable is connected to the vehicle body and the secondary reference of Kaneda does have the port in the expected location which could be included in the body of the primary reference. see at least [¶018, 022-024, 028, 033 and FIG 6]).
Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo do not explicitly teach wherein the cable support member includes: a stand part that is disposed on the vehicle body and rises upward; and an arm part that extends in a direction away from the stand part and supports the power feeding cable.
However, Ryu does teach wherein the cable support member includes: a stand part that is disposed on the vehicle body and rises upward (The cable support member includes a stand that rises from the vehicle body. see at least [¶024-026 and FIG 13]);
and an arm part that extends in a direction away from the stand part and supports the power feeding cable (An arm that extends away from the stand and is sued to support the power cable. see at least [¶024-026 and FIG 13]),
Ryu would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of electric work machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo to use the technique of having the cable support member includes: a stand part that is disposed on the vehicle body and rises upward and an arm part that extends in a direction away from the stand part and supports the power feeding cable as taught by Ryu. Doing so would lead to improved placement of a cable to prevent accidental damage (see at least [¶098]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota JP2010065445A (English Translation) in view of Kaneda (US 20210129682 A1) in view of Arai JPH0827835A (English Translation) in further view of Seo KR20140119911A (English Translation) in further view of Nishi (US 20190317521 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo do not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle body is provided with an operator's seat cover for covering the operator's seat from at least the upper side, and the camera is disposed in the operator's seat cover.
However, Nishi does teach wherein the vehicle body is provided with an operator's seat cover for covering the operator's seat from at least the upper side, and the camera is disposed in the operator's seat cover (The camara is placed on the cover of the operator seat, with the cover being on the top side of the operator seat. see at least [¶035, 0138, 0147 & Fig 1]).
Nishi would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of electric work vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota and Kaneda to use the technique of having the vehicle body is provided with an operator's seat cover for covering the operator's seat from at least the upper side, and the camera is disposed in the operator's seat cover as taught by Nishi. Doing so would lead to improved monitoring of the surrounding of the work vehicle (see at least [¶0147]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo do not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle body is provided with a cab for accommodating the operator's seat therein, the cab is provided with a rear surface for covering the operator's seat from the backward and an upper surface for covering the operator's seat from the upper side, and the camera is disposed on a posterosuperior corner part on which the rear surface and the upper surface of the cab intersect.
However, Nishi does teach wherein the vehicle body is provided with a cab for accommodating the operator's seat therein, the cab is provided with a rear surface for covering the operator's seat from the backward and an upper surface for covering the operator's seat from the upper side, and the camera is disposed on a posterosuperior corner part on which the rear surface and the upper surface of the cab intersect (The camara is placed on the top corner over of the operator seat where the rear and top meet, with their being a top and rear cover on the operator seat as part of the cabin. see at least [¶035, 0138, 0147 & Fig 1]).
Nishi would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of electric work vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota and Kaneda to use the technique of having the vehicle body is provided with a cab for accommodating the operator's seat therein, the cab is provided with a rear surface for covering the operator's seat from the backward and an upper surface for covering the operator's seat from the upper side, and the camera is disposed on a posterosuperior corner part on which the rear surface and the upper surface of the cab intersect as taught by Nishi. Doing so would lead to improved monitoring of the surrounding of the work vehicle (see at least [¶0147]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota JP2010065445A (English Translation) in view of Kaneda (US 20210129682 A1) in view of Arai JPH0827835A (English Translation) in further view of Seo KR20140119911A (English Translation) in further view of Miyazaki (US 20170101134 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, furthermore, Ota teaches a cable support member that is disposed on the rear side of the vehicle body to project closer to the upper side than the power feeding port from an upper surface of the vehicle body and support the power feeding cable (A cable support member on the rear of the vehicle body that projects upward and supports the power cable. see at least [¶019-022 and FIG 1]).
Ota and Kaneda do not explicitly teach wherein the working lamp is disposed between the power feeding port and the cable support member.
However, Miyazaki does teach wherein the working lamp is disposed between the power feeding port and the cable support member (It would be obvious to have the lamp from Miyazaki be included in the electric machine of Ota and be placed in the location between the power feeding port and cable support. The current location in Miyazaki would meet the conditions when placed in the machine of Ota. see at least [¶075 and Fig 11])
Miyazaki would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of work vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Ota, Kaneda, Arai and Seo to use the technique of having the working lamp is disposed between the power feeding port and the cable support member as taught by Miyazaki. Doing so would lead to improved notification to rear users that a vehicle is in motion (see at least [¶075]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights