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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006131162 in view of ISUZU (reference “V” on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, JP 2006131162 discloses:
A high roof cab (para. [0007], lines 1-2) for a truck in which a roof panel (1; Fig. 1; Abstract line 3) made of a metal (para. [0011]) plate (i.e., “panel”; see the Abstract, line 3) is mounted to expand a vehicle interior (by moving the original/standard roof (10; Fig. 4) to a higher position as described in para. [0011]) to an upper side of a cab body (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) having an opened ceiling (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below in that when the original/standard roof (10; Fig. 4) is removed is creates an “opened ceiling”) and a vehicle interior of a cab (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) is integrally formed by the cab body (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) and a roof part (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) including the roof panel (1; Fig. 1; Abstract line 3), comprising: bafflers (S; annotated Fig. 1 below) mounted (in that since the roof panel (1; Fig. 1) is the cut out original/standard roof panel (10; Fig. 4; as described in para. [0011]), then the bafflers (S; Fig. 1) must be separate elements which are mounted on the roof panel (1; Fig. 1)) on both sides of the roof panel (1; Fig. 1; where such position of the bafflers is shown in Fig. 1), wherein each of the bafflers (S; Fig. 1) includes an inclined face (pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below) which inclines so as to gradually widen a width of the roof part (as illustrated by a dotted line with arrows in annotated Fig. 1 below) outward in a vehicle width direction from a vehicle front side toward a vehicle rear side (where such inclined face direction from a front side to a rear side resulting in such wider roof part is pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1100
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP 2006131162 does not disclose that a maximum width of the roof panel (Wrpmax), which is defined by side faces of the roof panel, is set to be smaller than a maximum width of the cab body (Wcbmax) and wherein side faces of the cab body are formed in curved shapes so as be narrowed in a width direction as approaching upward. Notwithstanding, the ISUZU reference in images A and B below discloses cab configuration with a maximum width of a high roof cab roof panel (Wrpmax; image A below), which is defined by side faces of the roof panel, is set to be smaller than a maximum width of the cab body (Wcbmax image A below) and wherein side faces of the cab body are formed in curved shapes (see image B below) so as be narrowed in a width direction as approaching upward.
PNG
media_image2.png
447
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
568
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The ISUZU reference is considered to be relevant art in that the ISUZU reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to cab structures above a standard roof location of a truck cab, as the JP 2006131162 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the high roof cab of JP 2006131162 to have a maximum width of the roof panel (Wrpmax), which is defined by side faces of the roof panel, set to be smaller than a maximum width of the cab body (Wcbmax) and side faces of the cab body being in curved shapes so as be narrowed in a width direction as approaching upward as taught by the ISUZU reference with a reasonable expectation of success in order to maximize the occupant portion of the cab and the implementation of curved surfaces results in improved aerodynamic performance which improves fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU, discloses:
The high roof cab according to claim 1, as explained above, wherein: an upper face of the roof panel (2; Fig. 2) inclines such that a vehicle height gradually increases in the cab from the vehicle front side (the left edge of Fig. 2) toward the vehicle rear side (the right edge of Fig. 2).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006131162 in view of ISUZU (reference “V” on the attached PTO-892), as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Kawai US 2005/0281042.
Regarding claim 3, JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU, discloses:
The high roof cab according to claim 1, as explained above, except wherein; an upper face of the roof panel is configured by: a front upper face which positions on the vehicle front side and has an inclining angle that inclines toward the vehicle front side set within a first predetermined angle range; and a rear upper face which positions on the vehicle rear side and has the inclining angle set within a second predetermined angle range smaller than the first predetermined angle range.
Notwithstanding, Kawai discloses an upper face of the roof panel that is configured by: a front upper face (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1B below) which positions on the vehicle front side (the left edge of Fig. 1B below) and has an inclining angle that inclines toward the vehicle front side set within a first predetermined angle range; and a rear upper face (as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1B below) which positions on the vehicle rear side (the right edge of Fig. 1B below) and has the inclining angle set within a second predetermined angle range smaller than the first predetermined angle range in that the slope of the rear upper face is less than the slope of the front upper face as pointed out in dotted lines in annotated Fig. 1B below.
PNG
media_image4.png
760
689
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art is someone presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. The Kawai reference is considered to be relevant art in that the Kawai reference is in the same field of endeavor, namely that which pertains to cab structures above a standard roof location of a truck cab, as the JP 2006131162 reference.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the roof of the high roof cab of JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU, where upper face of the roof panel is configured by: a front upper face which positions on the vehicle front side and has an inclining angle that inclines toward the vehicle front side set within a first predetermined angle range; and a rear upper face which positions on the vehicle rear side and has the inclining angle set within a second predetermined angle range smaller than the first predetermined angle range as taught by Kawai with a reasonable expectation of success which results in a more streamlined profile which results in improved aerodynamic performance which improves fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU and Kawai, discloses:
The high roof cab according to claim 3, as explained above, wherein: the bafflers (S; annotated Fig. 1 above of JP 2006131162) are respectively mounted on a left side and a right side of the rear upper face (as shown in Fig. 1 above of JP 2006131162).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006131162 in view of ISUZU (reference “V” on the attached PTO-892), as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Buda et al. US 2011/0309656.
Regarding claim 7, JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU, discloses:
The high roof cab according to claim 1 except wherein: material of the bafflers is resin.
Notwithstanding, Buda et al. disclose a cab assembly (10; Fig. 2) which includes a roof assembly (110; Fig. 3), where the roof assembly is constructed from resin through a compression moulded process. See para. [0024], lines 8-11.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the bafflers of JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU, which are part of the high roof cab, from resin as taught by Buda et al. with a reasonable expectation of success which resin bafflers can be made by way of a compression moulded process which leads to durable and high strength bafflers which are light weight and less expensive than traditional steel components. Motivation provided by Buda et al., in para. [0024], lines 8-16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 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:
The recitation in claim 5 of a dent integrally formed by one of the bafflers and either one of the left side and the right side of the roof panel, the dent receiving an intake duct is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, JP 2012-136121, which is the closest prior art of record that teaches an air intake associated with a truck cab, fails to disclose a dent integrally formed by one of the bafflers and either one of the left side and the right side of the roof panel of a high cab roof, where the dent receives an intake duct. The air intake (26; Fig. 2 below) of JP 2012-136121 is near the standard roof (pointed out in Fig. 2 below) of the cab (12; Fig. 2 below) where a baffle plate (24; Fig. 2 below) meets the standard roof and forms a notch (32; Fig. 2 below). However, the notch does not meet the language in claim 5 regarding how a dent is formed. Namely, the dent is formed by one of the bafflers (as defined in parent claim 1) and a left side or right side of the roof of a high roof cab. The baffler of JP 2012-136121 is an air deflector rather than a high roof cab portion as defined in parent claim 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
514
542
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, JP 2006131162, in view of ISUZU, discloses:
The recitation in claim 6 of each of a left side face and a right side face of the roof panel curves or inclines so as to narrow a width of the roof panel as approaching upward; and the bafflers are each disposed at a portion at which the width of the roof panel is narrowed in a middle portion and an upper portion in an up-down direction on the vehicle rear side of the left side face and the right side face of the roof panel is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, in JP 2006131162, the closest prior art of record, it would not be obvious to provide the flat roof panel (1; Fig. 1) with left and right side faces which narrow the width of the roof panel approaching upward because the bafflers (S; Fig. 1) themselves are provided to form side faces. The bafflers are not separate elements which are associated with left and right side faces of the roof panel
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB 1560262 discloses a high roof cab 42 in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose bafflers associated with the high cab roof.
Kinford, Jr. US 4,357,045 discloses a vehicle with air deflectors 34, 36 in Fig. 1 which are positioned rearward of cab 16 in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose a high roof panel.
GB 2040238 discloses a high roof cab 5 in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose bafflers associated with the high cab roof.
WO-2017009682 discloses a high roof cab in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose bafflers associated with the high cab roof.
Grech US 8,910,992 discloses a high roof cab PFW in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose bafflers associated with the high cab roof.
DE 3718746 discloses a high cab roof 2 in Fig. 1. However, the reference does not disclose bafflers associated with the high cab roof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights