DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not meet drawing standards as set forth by 37 CFR 1.84. Specifically, Figs. 1-5 are photographs and/or grayscale renderings. New/replacement figures should be submitted as black and white line drawings in accordance with the drawing standards.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the working machine and the upper frame must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116.
An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 1 recites “an hydraulic system driving a working machine”. Additionally, claim 4 recites: “the hydraulic system is driven by the rear wheel driving motor.”
This recitation(s) is directed to functional language without setting forth any structure for performing the function. These unlimited functional claim limitations extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem and are not adequately supported by the written description or commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The invention is described in terms of a function, and lacks written descriptive support because there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. Applicant has described functions in the claims and specification, without any structure which would facilitate the carrying out of these functions. For example, how does the hydraulic system drive the working machine? How does the rear wheel driving motor drive the hydraulic system? Does the motor have a hydraulic pump? Does the working machine have a hydraulic motor, or is there a hydraulic motor in the hydraulic system? Is there a device/system responsible for mechanically connecting the hydraulic system to the working machine? The disclosure does not elaborate on how these components are functionally driven/interconnected. The hydraulic system (50) is only shown schematically in Applicant’s Fig. 1. Because the patent specification fails to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, the claims are found to not satisfy the written description requirement. The Applicant fails to show possession of the claimed invention because the Applicant has not sufficiently described the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. See MPEP 2163 and 2173.05(g).
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 Breu (US 11,358,479) in view of Van Raepenbusch (US 12,291,102) and Penmetsa (US 2015/0266382).
Regarding claim 1, Breu teaches: a platform structure of an electrically-driven tractor that can work while stably maintaining the center of gravity, comprising: a front wheel part and a rear wheel part that transmit power by 4-wheel driving (see front and rear electric drives 362, shown in Fig. 10); a cabin (370) installed between the front wheel part and the rear wheel part and installed to enable a worker to ride thereon; a battery part (304) for supplying power to the electrically-driven tractor;
Relevant elements are best shown in Figs. 6 and 10.
Breu teaches a working machine (attachable at the implement connector 52) installed at the rear end of the tractor. See Fig. 6. Breu further describes a hydraulic system; see column 5, lines 44-50. Breu fails to explicitly disclose the hydraulic system driving the working machine. Van Raepenbusch teaches a hydraulic system (including element 119) driving a working machine (133). In Van Raepenbusch, the hydraulic system is driven by an electric drive motor (106). See at least Fig. 1.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Breu with a hydraulic system driving the working machine; the motivation being: to power the working machine. Such an arrangement increases versatility, as it would allow hydraulic-powered implements to be used with the tractor.
Breu fails to disclose a three-point hitch installed at the rear of the hydraulic system to allow the working machine to be attached thereto. Penmetsa teaches a three-point hitch installed at the rear of the tractor to allow the working machine to be attached thereto. See at least Fig. 30 and [0137]. In Penmetsa, the three-point hitch is installed behind the power takeoff (126; analogous to the power takeoff of the hydraulic system of Van Raepenbusch). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide Breu with a three-point hitch as claimed; the motivation being: to enable the secure and selective attachment of working attachments/implements.
Additionally, it would be obvious to locate the hydraulic system at any location on the tractor where the hydraulic system is able to operate adequately. Placement of the hydraulic system at the rear of the tractor would be desirable because the hydraulic system would be located near the attachable work machine/implement. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the hydraulic system at the rear of the tractor, such that the three-point hitch installed at the rear of the hydraulic system, as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification is a change of location of parts. The rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches: wherein the cabin is installed at an upper frame (not shown) installed between the battery part and the hydraulic system. See the part of the chassis (12 or 312) on which the cab is located. See Figs. 6 and 10 from Breu.
Regarding claim 3, the combination further teaches: wherein a radiator (10) for cooling the battery part is installed at the front of the battery part, the front wheel part and the rear wheel part are composed of a front wheel driving motor and a rear wheel driving motor, and the front wheel driving motor and the rear wheel driving motor has a front wheel driving transmission and a rear wheel driving transmission connected thereto, respectively, and the three-point hitch is installed at the rear of the hydraulic system so that the working machine can be attached. In Breu, a separate electric drive (362) is provided for each of the front and rear axles; Breu additionally teaches each electric drive includes an electric motor 62 and a transmission 60; see column 7, lines 13-20 and Figs. 6 and 10 from Breu.
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches: wherein the hydraulic system is driven by the rear wheel driving motor. See Figs 6 and 10 from Breu, and Fig. 1 from Van Raepenbusch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional art made of record relates to tractors and vehicles having hydraulics, hitches, and/components relevant to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights