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
Priority
The applicant’s priority to application JP2022-049888 filed on March 25th, 2022 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 30th, 2024 and December 22nd, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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: “operator’s seat fixing part” and “prime mover fixing part” in claim 1, “slide mechanism” in claim 5, and “attaching part” in claim 6. “Operator’s seat fixing part” and “prime mover fixing part” are interpreted as screw holes with bolts (P0028). “Slide mechanism” is interpreted as a slide rail and lever (P0022).
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.
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(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.
Claim 6 is 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 limitation “an attaching part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. P0027 mentions attaching portions not parts. Additionally, even if the attachment portions correspond to the attaching part the attachment portions are shown schematically in the drawings and no actual structure is present in the drawings or specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumino et al (EP 3575500), hereafter Sumino further in view of Wada (US 8465094).
With regards to claim 1, Sumino discloses a construction machine (hydraulic excavator 1) comprising: an automotive lower traveling structure (lower traveling structure 2); and an upper revolving structure (upper revolving structure 3) disposed on the lower traveling structure to be capable of revolving thereto, wherein the upper revolving structure includes: a revolving frame (5) serving as a support structure; a prime mover (engine 7) disposed on the backside of the revolving frame; a prime mover cover (engine cover 8) for covering the prime mover in such a manner as to be capable of opening and closing; and an operator's seat (driver’s seat 9) disposed on an upper side of the prime mover cover, characterized in that there is provided a seat base (not labeled separately in Fig 1) that is disposed between an upper surface part (8B) of the prime mover cover and the operator's seat to fix the operator's seat on the upper side of the prime mover cover. Sumino does not disclose the seat base including: an operator 's seat fixing part attached to the operator's seat; and a prime mover cover fixing part attached to the prime mover cover, wherein the prime mover cover fixing part of the seat base is located in a range wider than the operator' s seat fixing part.
However, Wada discloses the seat base including: an operator 's seat fixing part (26) attached to the operator's seat and a prime mover cover fixing part (21) attached to the prime mover cover (11), wherein the prime mover cover fixing part of the seat base is located in a range wider than the operator's seat fixing part (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fix the seat and prime mover cover of Sumino in the manner disclosed by Wada, to avoid interference between components that could cause damage.
With regards to claim 2, Sumino and Wada disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Sumino further discloses a grip disposed in the seat base to open or close the prime mover cover (Not labeled in Figure 3).
With regards to claim 3, Sumino and Wada disclose all the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. Sumino further discloses wherein the prime mover cover is formed as an opening/closing cover of which a front side is capable of opening and closing in the upper-lower direction with a rear side thereof as a fulcrum (Fig. 3); and the grip includes: an outer grip part that is positioned outside the seat base in the left-right direction to extend in the front-back direction (Not labeled in Figure 3); Sumino and Wada do not directly disclose a front grip part that is positioned in front of the seat base to extend in the left-right direction. However, absence any evidence of criticality this is a simple change in shape and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to avoid interference with other components.
With regards to claim 4, Sumino and Wada disclose all the elements of claim 3 as outlined above. Sumino further discloses wherein the grip is located closer to the rear side than a front surface of the prime mover cover (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumino and Wada as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Koshi et al. (US 11613191), hereafter Koshi.
With regards to claim 6, Sumino and Wada disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Sumino and Wada do not disclose wherein the seat base is provided with an attaching part for attaching an additional component.
However, Koshi discloses wherein the seat base is provided with an attaching part (support plate 45) for attaching an additional component (Col. 3, L31-35). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add an attachment part as disclosed by Koshi to the machine disclosed by Sumino and Wada, if desired to add more functionality.
Allowable subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 would be allowable for reciting “and the front grip part of the grip is inclined downward from an outer side to an inner side in the left-right direction to be located in a position lower than the operator's seat moved to the front side by the slide mechanism.”
Although slide mechanisms are known in the art, there is no teaching or suggestion that would render it obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a grip and a slide mechanism be arranged in the manner recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights