On 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 03/12/2024.
Claims 1-3 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Figures 2-3 are recited as a cross sectional views however the figures do not include any cross hatching.
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
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioji et al. (US9702112) in view of Erhardt et al. (US11801794).
Claim 1. Shioji discloses: A cab (4 cab, Fig. 1) for a construction machine (1 excavator, Fig. 1), comprising:
a cab box (41, 42, 46 pillars form room space of 4 and 142 roof portion, Fig. 1; Col. 5, line 53-Col. 6, line 5) having an opening (141a opening, Fig. 7) formed on a front side (141 front wall, Fig. 7) thereof;
a front window (47 front window, Fig. 7) provided in the cab box and movable between a window-closing position where the opening is closed and a window-opening position (open and close positions; Fig. 7, Col. 8, lines 16-33) where the front window is accommodated below a top surface (underside of 142 roof, Fig. 7) portion of the cab box (underside of 142 roof, Fig. 7); and
a monitor device (21 monitor, Fig. 3-9) provided in the cab box (Fig. 3) and displaying various types of information (21 displays real time updates, Col. 5, lines 34-37).
Shioji does not disclose: the monitor device is mounted on the front window ( to move between the window-closing position and the window-opening position as the front window is moved.
Erhardt discloses a display oriented in a cab of a power machine to provide information to the operator both while the door is in the opened and closed positions.
Erhardt teaches: the monitor device (402 or 502 display, Fig. 12) is mounted on the front window (524 front entry door, Fig. 11-13) to move between the window-closing position (closed, Fig. 12) and the window-opening position (open, Fig. 13) as the front window is moved (Fig. 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the location of the monitor of Shioji to a location attached to the front window as taught by Erhardt with a reasonable expectation of success in order have an improved viewing angle as taught by Erhardt (Col. 16, lines 6-11).
Claim 2. Shioji in view of Erhardt teaches: The cab for a construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the monitor device is mounted on the front window (see previously rejected claim 1), using a universal joint having an adjustable mounting angle (Shioji: 50 support member, Fig. 4-5; Erhart: 512 moveable mount, Fig. 14A-14B).
Claim 3. Shioji in view of Erhardt teaches: The cab for a construction machine according to claim 1, wherein an operator's seat for an on-board operator is provided in the cab box (Shioji: 61 operator’s seat, Fig. 3; Erhardt: 364 operator seat, Fig. 4A), wherein the monitor device is mounted on the front window so as to be located forward from a backrest (Shioji: backrest of 61 operator’s seat, Fig. 3; Erhardt: 362 operator seatback, Fig. 4), of the operator's seat, with the front window disposed at the window-opening position (Shioji: Fig. 3; Erhardt: Fig. 4).
Claim 4. Shioji in view of Erhardt teaches: The cab for a construction machine according to claim 1, wherein the cab box comprises an entrance way for allowing access to one side in the right-and-left direction (Shioji: door; Col. 6, lines 8-9), wherein the monitor device is disposed on the other side in the right-and-left direction of the front window opposite the entrance way (Shioji: 21 monitor is opposite of entrance; Fig. 3; Erhardt: 402 is on the right side of the window; Fig. 7).
Regarding the limitation: the monitor device is disposed on the other side in the right-and-left direction of the front window opposite the entrance way, both Shioji and Erhardt teach monitors on the right side of the cab in various embodiments (Shioji: Fig. 3; Erhardt: Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to positioned the monitor on the opposite side of the entry on the front window as instantly claimed based on choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve access and/or improve forward visibility. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676