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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “… the driver’s cab and the casing is positioned one on each side of the pair of longitudinal members”, instead of “… the driver’s cab and the casing being positioned one on each side of the pair of longitudinal members”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “The handling machine 4 claim 3,” instead of “The handling machine of claim 3”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, and 15-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “between a pair of longitudinal members”. It is believed that Applicant intended to recite “between the pair of longitudinal members”, referring to the longitudinal members introduced in Claim 2. Because Claim 4 is currently dependent upon Claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the longitudinal members. The Examiner recommends amending Claim 4 as indicated above, as well as replacing its dependency upon Claim 3 with dependency upon Claim 2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “increasing from the front toward the rear”. Because the front and the rear are not previously defined within Claim 15 or any of the claims upon which it is dependent, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms. The Examiner recommends amending Claim 15 to recite “increasing from a front portion of the vehicle toward a rear portion of the vehicle”.
Claims 16 and 17 recite the limitation “toward a vent”. It is believed that Applicant intended to recite “toward the vent”, referring to the vent introduced in Claim 8. Because Claims 16 and 17 are currently dependent upon Claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the vent. The Examiner recommends amending Claims 16 and 17 as indicated above, as well as replacing their dependency upon Claim 1 with dependency upon Claim 8.
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 1-2, 6, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puszkiewicz (US-2019071291-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Puszkiewicz teaches:
A handling machine (Fig. 1, telehandler 10) comprising:
a chassis having a median longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, frame assembly 12);
a load handling device moveably mounted to the chassis (Fig. 1, boom assembly 100, various implements 116);
an electric motor configured to at least one of
move the handling machine, and
actuate the load-handling device (¶ [0026] line 33, "tractive elements 30 include an individual motive driver (e.g., a motor that is electrically coupled to the energy storage device, etc.)");
a fuel cell configured to generate electrical energy intended to power the electric motor (¶ [0026] line 9, "the primary driver 32 is another type of device (e.g., spark-ignition engine, fuel cell, etc.)");
a tank configured to contain hydrogen and be connected to the fuel cell in order to supply the fuel cell with hydrogen (¶ [0026] line 4, "The primary driver 32 may receive fuel (e.g., gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc.) from a fuel tank");
a driver's cab fixed to the chassis and positioned on a first side of the chassis with respect to the median longitudinal axis of the chassis (Fig. 1, cabin 20); and
a casing fixed to the chassis and positioned on a second side of the chassis opposite to the first side with respect to the median longitudinal axis of the chassis (Fig. 1, housing 24),
wherein at least one of the fuel cell or the tank is housed inside the casing (¶ [0025] line 17, "The housing 24 contains various components of the telehandler 10 (e.g., the primary driver 32, the pump 34, a fuel tank, a hydraulic fluid reservoir, etc.)").
Regarding Claim 2, Puszkiewicz teaches:
The handling machine of claim 1,
wherein the chassis includes a pair of longitudinal members extending longitudinally, one respectively on each side of the median longitudinal axis (Fig. 4, ¶ [0047] line 24, "the frame assembly 12 includes a pair of plates 244 that extend between the panels 164"),
the driver’s cab and the casing is positioned one on each side of the pair of longitudinal members (¶ [0025] line 10, "The cabin 20 is laterally offset from the longitudinal centerline L" … [0025] line 15, "The housing 24 is laterally offset from the longitudinal centerline L in a direction opposite the cabin 20").
Regarding Claim 6, Puszkiewicz teaches:
The handling machine of claim 1,
wherein the fuel cell and the tank are housed inside the casing (¶ [0025] line 17, "The housing 24 contains various components of the telehandler 10 (e.g., the primary driver 32, the pump 34, a fuel tank, a hydraulic fluid reservoir, etc.)").
Regarding Claim 18, Puszkiewicz teaches:
The handling machine of claim 1,
further comprising at least two motors configured to actuate the load-handling device and to move the handling machine respectively (¶ [0027] line 14, "The outriggers 40 may each include an actuator (e.g., a hydraulic cylinder, a motor, etc.) configured to move the outriggers 40 between the stored position and the deployed position"; ¶ [0026] line 32, "In some such embodiments, one or more of the tractive elements 30 include an individual motive driver (e.g., a motor that is electrically coupled to the energy storage device, etc.) configured to facilitate independently driving each of tractive elements 30.").
Regarding Claim 19, Puszkiewicz teaches:
The handling machine of claim 1,
wherein the load-handling device includes a lifting arm extending in a longitudinal plane between the casing and the driver's cab and mounted in an articulated manner on the chassis about a transverse axis of pivoting (Fig. 2, various implements 116, tower boom 110, housing 24, cabin 20, frame assembly 12, lower actuator 120).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puszkiewicz (US-2019071291-A1) in view of Tomimoto (US-20180126868-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Puszkiewicz fails to teach any of the limitations beyond the handling machine of claim 1. Tomimoto teaches an electrical energy storage device, the fuel cell and the electrical energy storage device being electrically connected, in parallel, to the electric motor (¶ [0006] line 4, "a fuel cell stack, which is electrically connected to the in-vehicle electric load, a power storage device, which is electrically connected to the fuel cell stack so as to be electrically connected in parallel to the in-vehicle electric load"). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Puszkiewicz with a battery, fuel cell, and motor electrically connected in parallel, as suggested by Tomimoto; the motivation being: providing the motor with an alternative power source in the case that the fuel cell runs out of hydrogen fuel, or the battery runs out of charge.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination further teaches the electrical energy storage device is housed in a space formed between a pair of longitudinal members (Fig. 1, fuel cell system 22 located between longitudinal members of vehicle body 11; Fig. 2, capacitor 39 located inside fuel cell system 22; ¶ [0074] line 1, "… the capacitor 39 is used. However, instead of this, a rechargeable battery may be used …"). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Puszkiewicz with an electrical energy storage device housed in a space formed between the pair of longitudinal members, as suggested by Tomimoto; the motivation being: locating the battery such that it is protected from any side impacts to the vehicle.
Claims 7-8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puszkiewicz (US-2019071291-A1) and Tomimoto (US-20180126868-A1), as applied above, in further view of Kato (JP-2007048578-A).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination fails to teach any of the limitations beyond the handling machine of claim 1. Kato teaches a hydrogen detector housed inside the casing (Description, ¶ 35 line 3, "The fuel cell case 14 is provided with a hydrogen sensor (fuel gas sensor) 16 that detects hydrogen leakage in the fuel cell case 14"). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination with a hydrogen detector housed inside the casing, as suggested by Kato; the motivation being: providing a control signal to trigger a visible and/or audible alarm when a hydrogen leak is detected, or to energize a solenoid valve and allow the hydrogen to vent to atmosphere.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination further teaches the casing has a vent for removing a flow of gas from an internal space of the casing (Kato, Description, ¶ 35 line 1, "A ventilation hole 15 is provided in the fuel cell case 14 for ventilation in the fuel cell case 14). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination with a vent in the casing for removing gas from the internal space of the casing, as suggested by Kato; the motivation being: providing a flow path for hydrogen gas to vent to atmosphere, away from ignition sources in and around the casing.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination further teaches the vent is positioned in an upper rear portion of the casing (Kato, Fig. 2, fuel cell case 14, ventilation hole 15).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination further teaches the vent is directed upwardly (Kato, Fig. 2, fuel cell case 14, ventilation hole 15).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination further teaches the casing has an upper wall having a slope, the slope being at least one of zero or increasing from the front toward the rear, in a longitudinal direction of the handling machine (Kato, Fig. 2, fuel cell case 14).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puszkiewicz (US-2019071291-A1), Tomimoto (US-20180126868-A1), and Kato (JP-2007048578-A), as applied above, in further view of Hanaya (US-6514136-B1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination teaches a front axle and a rear axle, mounted on the chassis transversely with respect to the median longitudinal axis, wherein each of the front axle and the rear axle includes two wheels (Puszkiewicz, Fig. 2, tractive elements 30, front and rear axles not numbered). The combination fails to teach the vent being positioned above the right rear wheel. Hanaya teaches the vent is positioned above a first wheel of the rear axle, the first wheel being positioned on the second side (Hanaya, Fig. 1, hydrogen ventilation duct 20, vent 41). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination with a vent located above the rear right wheel, as suggested by Hanaya; the motivation being: locating the vent such that exhausted hydrogen gas is released to atmosphere in a manner that prevents impingement upon lower structures of the vehicle, as well as the cabin and operator personnel located on the opposite side of the median longitudinal axis.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination further teaches the vent has a structure configured to allow a liquid to flow out of the vent (Hanaya, Fig. 8, drain tube 60).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puszkiewicz (US-2019071291-A1), Tomimoto (US-20180126868-A1), Kato (JP-2007048578-A), and Hanaya (US-6514136-B1), as applied above, in further view of Kwon (US-20110048837-A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination fails to teach any of the limitations beyond the handling machine of claim 1. Kwon teaches the tank has a discharge valve for emptying the hydrogen from the tank, the discharge valve being connected to a discharge circuit designed to convey the hydrogen from the tank toward a vent (Fig. 1, hydrogen tank 21, hydrogen supply valve 24, hydrogen exhaust line 41). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination with a discharge valve inline between the tank and the vent, as suggested by Kwon; the motivation being: preventing fibers and flyings or other combustibles and/or contaminates from entering the tank via the vent line.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination further teaches the fuel cell has a discharge valve for emptying the hydrogen from the fuel cell, the discharge valve being connected to a discharge circuit designed to convey the hydrogen from the fuel cell toward a vent (Kwon, Fig. 1, fuel cell stack 10, hydrogen purge valve 42, hydrogen exhaust line 41).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puszkiewicz (US-2019071291-A1), Tomimoto (US-20180126868-A1), Kato (JP-2007048578-A), Hanaya (US-6514136-B1), and Kwon (US-20110048837-A1), as applied above, in further view of Chen (CN-101722906-A).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination fails to teach any of the limitations beyond the handling machine of claim 3. Chen teaches a DC/DC voltage converter that is connected to the fuel cell, the electric motor, and the electrical energy storage device (Fig. 1; Contents of the invention, ¶ 2 line 4, "A fuel cell is coupled to the input node of the boost converter and a battery is coupled to the first output node. An inverter module is coupled to the second output node, and a vehicle traction drive unit is coupled the inverter module."). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination with a DC/DC voltage converter connected to the fuel cell, the electric motor, and the electrical energy storage device, as suggested by Chen; the motivation being: to boost the voltage output of the fuel cell stack and reduce the number of individual fuel cells required in the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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:
Claim 9 describes the vent being located closer to the median longitudinal axis than the second side of the handling machine, as well as below the upper edge of the load-handling device when in a lowered position. Hanaya teaches the vent being located closer to the median longitudinal axis than the second side of the handling machine, however Hanaya does not teach the vent being located below an upper edge of the load-handling device when in a lowered position. It would not be obvious to modify the combination to read on Claim 9.
Claim 13 describes first and second angles of the vent relative to the vertical line of the transverse plane and the vertical line of the longitudinal plane, respectively. Hanaya teaches the vent inclined toward the rear by an angle between 5 and 45 degrees with respect to the vertical line of the longitudinal plane, however Hanaya does not teach the vent inclined toward the outside by an angle between 5 and 45 degrees with respect to the vertical line of the transverse plane. It would not be obvious to modify the combination to read on Claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art of record relates to fuel cell vehicles having features relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R BRENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0299. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EDT.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/WILLIAM RICHARD BRENNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights