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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the mechanism disclosed in paragraphs [0039-0041] is unclear. Specifically, the specification states (at [0039]) that the remaining amount E1 of liquid at a liquid level L1 can be confirmed when viewed from above. It is unclear how this accomplished. The specification (at [0040]) goes on to state that the remaining amount E2 is confirmed when viewed from above. This again is entirely unclear as to how this is accomplished. When a person views a liquid in a container from above there is no way to distinguish the amount. When viewed from either a front or lateral side it is clear that one could visually confirm a liquid level but it is unclear how this is accomplished from above. The specification (at [0041]) states that a front end edge of the liquid level remaining is closer to a front side of the inclined surface 19A when viewed from above but it is unclear how one would determine this upon visual inspection alone. Visual confirmation from above works in a system like that seen in JP 274 (cited by applicant) because the inclined wall is on a bottom surface of the container and that particular shape allows a visual distinction from above. With the current invention, the bottom wall of the container is horizontal. The remaining liquid in the container settles to the bottom and encompasses the entire surface area of the bottom making a visual distinction from above an impossibility. Further explanation is requested and appropriate correction is required
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on lines 12-16 it is entirely unclear how the mechanism allows an operator to confirm a remaining amount of liquid when viewed from above. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites both “the right-and-left direction” and “the front-rear direction” which lack antecedent basis in the claim and is unclear because neither directionality is not defined with respect to the machine. Perhaps “right-and-left direction of the machine” and “a front-rear direction of the machine” or something similar should be recited instead.
Claim 4 recites “the right-and-left direction” twice more both of which lack antecedent basis in the claim.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 043 in view of either KR 699 (KR19980050699) or JP 166 (JP 2019-142166).
For claim 1, JP 043 (JP 2005-239043) discloses a construction machine (hydraulic excavator) comprising:
a self-propelled vehicle body (11,12, FIG.3); and
a cab (14, FIG,1) provided on the vehicle body and having a window (front window),
PNG
media_image1.png
662
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the cab comprising: an ejection device (components 12) spurting a washer liquid onto the window and a washer tank (18) storing a washer liquid to be supplied to the ejection device,
JP 043 lacks the washer tank being composed of a transparent or translucent container and includes an inclined surface that inclines from a bottom surface to a top surface.
These features are known from and taught by both KR 19980050699 (KR 699) and JP 116.
KR 699 (below, left) provides a washer tank (3) of transparent or translucent material that includes an inclined surface (4) that inclines from a bottom surface to a top surface. Although FIG.2b shows a stepped configuration the description makes clear that instead “it may be formed as a straight portion inclined toward the washer liquid inlet 1 from the bottom to the upper side to more accurately observe the amount of the washer liquid that changes”. Likewise, JP 116 provides a similar arrangement with transparent member (41) (FIGS.16-17, below, right).
PNG
media_image2.png
188
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
311
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have utilized the transparent or translucent washer tank of KR 699 or JP 116 in place of the tank for the machine of JP 043 in order to allow for visual confirmation of liquid amount.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 043, as modified, in view of Brown (4161287).
For claim 2, JP 043, as modified above, discloses an operator's seat (22) is provided in the cab (14), wherein the washer tank (18) is disposed behind a backrest of the operator's seat (22) at a rear surface portion of the cab at a position lower than an upper end of the backrest.
JP 043, as modified, fails to position the tank (18) between the seat and rear surface portion within the cab.
Brown teaches a cab having a washer tank (bottle) therein.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the tank of JP 043, as modified, within the cab as taught by Brown for easier occupant access.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application is the inclusion of the specific washer tank is formed as a laterally long container extending in the right-and-left direction of the cab of the machine and the inclined surface defined on a front surface of the washer tank and disposed at a position to overlap with the backrest in the front-rear direction of the cab of the machine, in combination with the other elements recited which is not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. Examiner interviews are available via telephone using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B