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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy (US 2014/0105715) in view of Martinez (US 2014/0119870).
Re claim 1, Tracy teaches a work vehicle (not numbered, figures 1,2) comprising: a frame 104; a lift arm 122 having a base end section attached to the frame; a work tool 114 attached to a distal end section of the lift arm; a base-end link device 128,130 attached to the frame and the base end section side of the lift arm; a distal-end link device 132,138 attached to the work tool and the distal end section side of the lift arm; and a work tool cylinder 126 extending from the base-end link device toward the distal- end link device and driving the work tool via the distal-end link device. Tracy does not teach the claimed angle detection device.
Martinez teaches a similar work vehicle [0024] with an angle detection device (58,60, [0029-0036]) attached to the lift arm 12,14 and detecting an angle formed by the lift arm and a distal-end link device (figures 2,4,6,etc.), wherein the angle detection device is disposed between a portion of the lift arm to which the distal-end link device is connected and the base end section of the lift arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tracy in view of Martinez as claimed in order to better control pivoting movements of the various linkages to achieve desired movements and operations.
Re claim 2, Tracy as already modified teaches a lift arm cylinder 124 having a base end section attached to the frame and a distal end section attached to the lift arm (Tracy figure 2) and driving the lift arm, wherein the angle detection device is disposed between a portion of the lift arm to which the distal-end link device is connected and a portion of the lift arm to which the distal end section of the lift arm cylinder is connected.
Re claim 3, Tracy as already modified teaches a turning angle transmission mechanism (Tracy figure 2, Martinez figures 2,4,6) coupling the distal-end link device and the angle detection device (Tracy figure 2, Martinez figures 2,4,6), wherein the angle detection device has a rotation shaft A to which the turning angle transmission mechanism is fixed, the base-end link device has: a bell crank 130 connecting the base end section of the work tool cylinder 126 and the lift arm 122; and a frame coupling rod 128 connecting the bell crank and the frame 104, the distal-end link device has: a work tool coupling rod 132 connecting the distal end section of the work tool cylinder and the work tool 114; and a guide member 138 connecting the work tool coupling rod 132 and the lift arm 122, and the turning angle transmission mechanism has: a first transmission bar 62 having a base end section fixed to the rotation shaft A of the angle detection device; and a second transmission bar 64 having a base end section turnably coupled to the distal end section of the first transmission bar 62 and a distal end section turnably coupled to the guide member 138 (30 Martinez).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy (US 2014/0105715) in view of Martinez (US 2014/0119870) and Yanmar (JPS56-077562).
Re claim 4, Tracy does not mention covers, but Yanmar (cover 14 over sensor 13, figures 1-3) does to protect the sensor, and the orientation of the angle detection device of Martinez when arranged on Tracy is variable to match the particular locations attached. Further changes in size, proportion, shape & rearrangement of parts are known to be obvious (MPEP2144, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tracy as claimed to protect the angle detection device and match the orientation/space needs of a desired lifting linkage arrangement.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tracy (US 2014/0105715) in view of Martinez (US 2014/0119870) and Miyanishi (US 7,008,169).
Re claims 5-6, Tracy as already modified in view of Martinez teaches the lift arm is configured of a pair of vertical plates 122 opposite to each other to be spaced apart from each other in a vehicle width direction, the angle detection device 58,60 is disposed between the pair of vertical plates 122 (14,16 Martinez) of the lift arm in the case of the posture in which the distal end sections of the lift arm are lower than the base end sections of the lift arm as claimed.
Tracy does not mention piping / piping supports. However, Miyanishi teaches running / locating piping (21-23) & piping supports (33-35) as needed to power the implement 4 and other items and improve endurance, protection, and maintenance of the piping through its run and locations (figures 2,3,7-10, column 3 lines 13-32). Further changes in size, proportion, shape & rearrangement of parts are known to be obvious (MPEP2144, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Tracy in view of Miyanishi as claimed to provide piping to power as needed and improve endurance, protection, and maintenance of the piping through its run and locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda teaches piping routing and support (figures 12-17,21).
Iwamoto teaches piping routing and support (cover figure, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652