DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 2/18/2026. Currently, claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that Nishi et al. and YAMANAKA et al. do not teach a side surface included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat has a front-side portion and a rear-side portion that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to the first control lever as the rear-side portion extends rearward from the front-side portion in the top view, and a second control switch is provided in the rear-side portion have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration and in view of Applicant’s amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Spicer et al. (US 4,268,215 A).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “operation unit” in claim claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s specification teaches the following corresponding structure(s) as performing the claimed function: a first control lever, a second control lever, and a third control switch.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The disclosure of claim 7 is recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 7 depends). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (US 2012/0073895 A1) in view of Spicer et al. (US 4,268,215 A).
In regards to claims 1 and 7, Nishi et al. (US 2012/0073895 A1) teaches in [0067], [0079] and Figures 12 and 13
an operator's seat (driver's seat 3); and
a console (control apparatus S) including (as shown in Figures 12 and 13) an operation unit (speed changer lever 12, lift lever 13, and “third control switch” defined in the annotated copy of Figure 13 provided below; button defined as “third control switch” is understood to serve a control function) and being located laterally of (Figure 13 teaches the control apparatus S being located to the right of the driver's seat 3; [0079] teaches “in the foregoing embodiments, the armrest 20 and the lever supporting structure 30 are disposed on the right lateral side of the driver's seat 3”) the operator's seat (driver's seat 3),
wherein
the operation unit (control apparatus S) includes (as shown in Figures 12 and 13) a first control lever (lift lever 13) and a second control lever (speed changer lever 12),
the second control lever (speed changer lever 12) is located between (as shown in Figured 12 and 13) the operator's seat (driver's seat 3) and the first control lever (lift lever 13) in a left-right direction (as shown in Figures 12 and 13),
the first control lever (lift lever 13) includes a first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13; taught in [0067] to be a “resin block”),
the second control lever (speed changer lever 12) includes a second knob (operational portion 12b of the speed changer lever 12),
the first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13) has a width larger than a width of the second knob (operational portion 12b of the speed changer lever 12) as seen in a top view (Figure 12 teaches operational portion 13b being wider than operational portion 12b as viewed from above),
the width of the first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13) is a measurement of the first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13) in the left-right direction as seen in the top view (Figure 12 teaches the width of operational portion 13b being a left-right dimension as viewed from above),
the width of the second knob (operational portion 12b of the speed changer lever 12) is a measurement of the second knob (operational portion 12b of the speed changer lever 12) in the left-right direction as seen in the top view (Figure 12 teaches the width of operational portion 12b being a left-right dimension as viewed from above).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nishi et al. does not teach a side surface included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat has a front-side portion and a rear-side portion that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to the first control lever as the rear-side portion extends rearward from the front-side portion in the top view, and a second control switch is provided in the rear-side portion; and a portion included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat is provided with a second control switch.
However, Spicer et al. teaches in Figures 2-4 an analogous device with a side surface (the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) included in the second knob (valve 24, shifting knob 28, housing 32, actuation lever 34) and located laterally of (as shown in Figure 2) the operator's seat (seat 10) has a front-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) and a rear-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to (Figures 2 and 3 teach the rear-side portion being curved in a direction approaching shifting lever 22) the first control lever (shifting lever 22) as the rear-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) extends rearward from the front-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) in the top view (Figures 3 is a top view teaching the rear-side portion being curved rearward and inward; Figure 2 teaches the rear-side portion being curved rearward and inward in a direction approaching shifting lever 22), and a second control switch (actuation lever 34) is provided in (as shown in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) the rear-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below); and a portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) included in the second knob (valve 24, shifting knob 28, housing 32, actuation lever 34) and located laterally of (as shown in Figure 2) the operator's seat (seat 10) is provided with (as shown in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below)a second control switch (actuation lever 34).
PNG
media_image2.png
573
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the second knob of Nishi et al. to provide a side surface included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat has a front-side portion and a rear-side portion that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to the first control lever as the rear-side portion extends rearward from the front-side portion in the top view, and a second control switch is provided in the rear-side portion; and a portion included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat is provided with a second control switch as taught by Spicer et al. because this element is known to provide that the operator can manipulate the second control lever by placing the palm of his hand upon the second knob and at the same time his fingertips are free to manipulate a second control switch and further, enables the operator to have access to all of the controls with one hand, leaving the other hand free to operate steering wheel, as Spicer et al. teaches in columns 3-4, lines 62-2.
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. do not teach that the first knob includes: a first upper curved portion located on an operator's seat side, which is a side located laterally of the operator's seat; and a second upper curved portion located on an opposite side to the operator's seat side, as seen in a rear view, the second upper curved portion is curved more gently than the first upper curved portion as seen in the rear view; and wherein the second knob includes a third upper curved portion located on the operator's seat side and a fourth upper curved portion located on the opposite side to the operator's seat side, as seen in the rear view, and the second upper curved portion is curved more gently than the third upper curved portion and the fourth upper curved portion, as seen in the rear view.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the first knob includes: a first upper curved portion located on an operator's seat side, which is a side located laterally of the operator's seat; and a second upper curved portion located on an opposite side to the operator's seat side, as seen in a rear view, the second upper curved portion is curved more gently than the first upper curved portion as seen in the rear view; and wherein the second knob includes a third upper curved portion located on the operator's seat side and a fourth upper curved portion located on the opposite side to the operator's seat side, as seen in the rear view, and the second upper curved portion is curved more gently than the third upper curved portion and the fourth upper curved portion, as seen in the rear view, since it has been held that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the shapes of the first and second knobs could be modified to most ergonomically and comfortably accommodate an induvial user’s anatomy.
In regards to claim 4, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nishi et al. teaches in Figure 13 that a top of the first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13) is lower than a top of (Figure 13 teaches the top edge of operational portion 13b being lower than the top edge of operational portion 12b) the second knob (operational portion 12b of the speed changer lever 12).
In regards to claim 5, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nishi et al. teaches in [0064-0065] that the first control lever (lift lever 13) and the second control lever (speed changer lever 12) are movable in a front-rear direction ([0064] teaches “the speed changer lever 12 is pivotally operated about the axis P1 in the fore/aft direction of the vehicle body along the speed changer lever guide groove 35;” [0065] teaches “the lift lever 13 is pivotally operated about the axis P2 in the fore/aft direction of the vehicle body along the lift lever guide groove 37”).
In regards to claim 8, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nishi et al. teaches in Figures 12 and 13 that the operation unit (speed changer lever 12, lift lever 13, and “third control switch” defined in the annotated copy of Figure 13 provided above; button defined as “third control switch” is understood to serve a control function) includes (as shown in Figures 12 and 13) a third control switch (“third control switch” defined in the annotated copy of Figure 13 provided above; button defined as “third control switch” is understood to serve a control function), and a distance between the first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13) and the third control switch (“third control switch” defined in the annotated copy of Figure 13 provided above) is smaller than a distance between the first knob (operational portion 13b of the lift lever 13) and the second knob (operational portion 12b of the speed changer lever 12), as seen in the top view (Figure 12 teaches the operational portion 13b being closer to the third control switch than to the operational portion 12b when viewed from above).
In regards to claim 9, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. do not teach that a distance between the first control lever and the second control lever is smaller than the width of the first knob.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that a distance between the first control lever and the second control lever is smaller than the width of the first knob, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that that distance between the first control lever and the second control lever relative to the width of the first knob could be modified as necessary to accommodate the anatomy of an individual user.
In regards to claim 11, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach cab according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Nishi et al. teaches in [0076] and Figures 12 and 13 a work machine (“work vehicle,” taught in [0076]) comprising (as taught in [0076] and Figures 12 and 13) said cab.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMANAKA et al. (JP 2005/146738 A) (with reference to translation filed by Applicant on 5/29/2024) in view of Spicer et al. (US 4,268,215 A).
In regards to claims 1 and 10, YAMANAKA et al. teaches in Figures 1-4, [0050] and [0053]
an operator's seat (driver’s seat 12); and
a console (console 17) including an operation unit (operation lever 19, operation lever 20, switch 22) and being located laterally of the operator's seat (as shown in Figure 3),
wherein
the operation unit (operation lever 19, operation lever 20, switch 22) includes a first control lever (operation lever 19) and a second control lever (operation lever 20),
the second control lever (operation lever 20) is located between (as shown in Figure 3) the operator's seat (driver’s seat 12) and the first control lever (operation lever 19) in a left-right direction (as shown in Figure 3),
the first control lever (operation lever 19) includes a first knob (spherical grip 19A; see Figure 4),
the second control lever (operation lever 20) includes a second knob (spherical grip 20A; see Figure 4),
the width of the first knob (spherical grip 19A) is a measurement of the first knob (spherical grip 19A) in the left-right direction as seen in the top view (Figure 4 teaches the width of spherical grip 19A being a left-right dimension as viewed from above),
the width of the second knob (spherical grip 20A) is a measurement of the second knob (spherical grip 20A) in the left-right direction as seen in the top view (Figure 4 teaches the width of spherical grip 20A being a left-right dimension as viewed from above), and;
the first control lever (operation lever 19) is a boom control lever ([0050] teaches “reference numeral 19 denotes a boom operating lever”), and the second control lever (operation lever 20) is a bucket control lever ([0053] teaches “reference numeral 20 denotes a bucket operating lever”).
YAMANAKA et al. does not teach that the first knob has a width larger than a width of the second knob as seen in a top view.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to provide that the first knob has a width larger than a width of the second knob as seen in a top view, since it has been held that a change in the size of a prior art design is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F. 2d 495, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention would find it obvious that the relative sizes of the first and second knobs could be modified to provide a distinguishable difference between the knobs to avoid user confusion, or to accommodate user comfort or personal preference.
YAMANAKA et al. further does not teach a side surface included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat has a front-side portion and a rear-side portion that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to the first control lever as the rear-side portion extends rearward from the front-side portion in the top view, and a second control switch is provided in the rear-side portion.
However, Spicer et al. teaches in Figures 2-4 an analogous device with a side surface (the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) included in the second knob (valve 24, shifting knob 28, housing 32, actuation lever 34) and located laterally of (as shown in Figure 2) the operator's seat (seat 10) has a front-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) and a rear-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to (Figures 2 and 3 teach the rear-side portion being curved in a direction approaching shifting lever 22) the first control lever (shifting lever 22) as the rear-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) extends rearward from the front-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) in the top view (Figures 3 is a top view teaching the rear-side portion being curved rearward and inward; Figure 2 teaches the rear-side portion being curved rearward and inward in a direction approaching shifting lever 22), and a second control (actuation lever 34) switch (actuation lever 34) is provided in (as shown in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below) the rear-side portion (portion of the lateral valve periphery, as defined in the annotated copy of Figure 3 provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
573
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the second knob of YAMANAKA et al. to provide a side surface included in the second knob and located laterally of the operator's seat has a front-side portion and a rear-side portion that is inclined so as to be positioned closer to the first control lever as the rear-side portion extends rearward from the front-side portion in the top view, and a second control switch is provided in the rear-side portion as taught by Spicer et al. because this element is known to provide that the operator can manipulate the second control lever by placing the palm of his hand upon the second knob and at the same time his fingertips are free to manipulate a second control switch and further, enables the operator to have access to all of the controls with one hand, leaving the other hand free to operate steering wheel, as Spicer et al. teaches in columns 3-4, lines 62-2.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. (US 2012/0073895 A1), in view of Spicer et al. (US 4,268,215 A) and further in view of KOSAKI et al. (US 2020/0183441 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Nishi et al. and Spicer et al. do not teach that a front portion of the first knob is provided with a first control switch.
However, KOSAKI et al. teaches in Figure 7 and [0135] an analogous device wherein a front portion of the first knob (operating portion 25 of operation lever 21) is provided with (as taught in Figure 7 and [0135]) a first control switch (operation switch 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the first knob of Nishi et al. as modified by Spicer et al. such that a front portion of the first knob is provided with a first control switch as taught by KOSAKI et al. because this element is known to provide an additional control switch that is positioned such that “the operator can intuitively know the position of the operation switch 35 while holding the gripping portion 24,” as KOSAKI et al. teaches in [0135].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 4/2/2026