DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 08/16/2024 and 04/28/2025 have been reviewed and considered.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (US 20170274892 A1) in view of Fukazu (US 20170232913 A1) and Vilardi (CN 115004486 A).
With respect to claim 1, Miyashita discloses a work vehicle ("utility vehicle", paragraph [0034]), comprising a terminal section and an electric device (M). Note, a “terminal section” is an inherent feature of Miyashita because electric motor (M) would need some sort of electrical connector to provide a connection to a power source to provide power to the motor.
Miyashita is silent in teaching that the terminal section is disposed on an outer surface of the electric device, and wherein the terminal section is inclined on a portion of the outer surface which portion faces upward relative to a body of the work vehicle.
Fukazu teaches a vehicle comprising an electric device (6L/R, Fig. 3) having an outer surface and a terminal section (6a/b) disposed on the outer surface of the electric device.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyashita in view of Fukazu to have a terminal section disposed on an outer surface of the electric device to provide easier access to the electrical connections in order to improve serviceability of the electric device.
Vilardi teaches orienting electrical connectors in vehicles with the purpose of improving accessibility of the electrical connectors (see “to improve the accessibility of the electrical connector assembly”, paragraph [0032])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyashita in view of Fukazu in further view of Vilardi to arrive at the claimed invention and to improve access to the terminals of the electric device in order to improve serviceability of the electric device.
Regarding the “faces upward” limitation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try any orientation that may improve access to the terminal sections. Such a person, having ordinary skill in field of electrical connections within vehicles would understand how the orientation of a terminal effects a user’s ability to access said terminal and could thus make such a modification to arrive at the claimed invention with predictable results. Furthermore, such a modification would have been considered obvious as it is a rearrangement of parts that would not modify operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.).
With respect to claim 2, Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi as modified above teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a cargo box (Miyashita; 4, Fig. 1) movable into a dumping orientation ("capable of dumping a load", paragraph [0035]), and wherein the electric device is below the cargo box.
With respect to claim 3, Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi teaches the work vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the electric device is an electric motor (see "electric motor M", paragraph [0034]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (US 20170274892 A1) in view of Fukazu (US 20170232913 A1) and Vilardi (CN 115004486 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Urban (US 5667029 A).
With respect to claim 4, Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi as modified above teaches the work vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising a travel device (Miyashita; 2, Fig. 1); a transmission case (7) configured to receive motive power from the electric motor and output the motive power to the travel device.
Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi as modified above is silent in teaching an endless rotor wound around an output pulley of the electric motor and an input pulley of the transmission case and configured to transmit motive power from the output pulley to the input pulley, and wherein the terminal section is inclined as viewed along a rotation axis of the output pulley.
Urban teaches a transmission comprising an endless rotor (72, Fig. 3) would around an output pulley (see annotated figure below) of an electric motor (32) and an input pulley (82) of the transmission and configured to transmit motive power from the output pulley to the input pulley.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi in further view of Urban to arrive at the claimed invention by substituting the transmission disclosed by Miyashita for the transmission taught by Urban. Such a modification would be obvious because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the transmission of Miyashita) for another (the transmission taught by Urban) to achieve predictable results. Since both transmissions transmit motive power from an electric motor to tractive elements of a vehicle, such a person would predict that the substitution would result in a substantially similar vehicle.
Since the axes of the pulleys taught by Urban are parallel to the axes of the pulleys disclosed by the applicant, after such a modification, the terminal section would be inclined as viewed along a rotation axis of the output pulley as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (US 20170274892 A1) in view of Fukazu (US 20170232913 A1) and Vilardi (CN 115004486 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 212709807 U).
With respect to claim 5, Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi as modified above teaches the work vehicle according to claim 3, further comprising: an inverter (Miyashita; 14, Fig. 1) connected to the electric motor (M) but is silent in teaching that the inverter has an outer surface provided with an inverter terminal section, and wherein the inverter terminal section is on a portion of the outer surface of the inverter which portion faces downward relative to the body.
Fukazu teaches an inverter (30, Fig. 4) having an outer surface and a terminal section (53a) on said outer surface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi in further view of Fukazu to have a terminal section disposed on an outer surface of the inverter to provide easier access to the electrical connections in order to improve serviceability of the inverter.
Wang teaches orienting (see “inclined towards the vehicle body and downward”, paragraph [0069]) vehicle electrical connections (41; also see “electrical terminal connection port 41”, paragraph [0069]) to face downwards with respect to a vehicle body to protect the electrical connections from water and/or dust (see “made more dustproof and waterproof”, paragraph [0072]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyashita in view of Fukazu and Vilardi in further view of Wang to arrive at the claimed invention and to protect the inverter terminal from water and dust.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyashita (US 20170274892 A1) in view of Fukazu (US 20170232913 A1) Vilardi (CN 115004486 A) and Wang (CN 212709807 U) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nishikori (US 20230228059 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Miyashita in view of Fukazu, Vilardi and Wang as modified above teaches the work vehicle according to claim 5 but is silent in teaching a cooling fan disposed above the inverter and configured to supply cooling air to the inverter.
Nishikori teaches a vehicle comprising an inverter (62, Fig. 2) and a cooling fan (F) disposed above the inverter and configured to supply cooling air to the inverter (see “may be partly air cooled”, paragraph [0054]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miyashita in view of Fukazu, Vilardi and Wang in further view of Nishikori to arrive at the claimed invention and to prevent damage to the inverter due to overheating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and discloses electrical connections in vehicles in general. US-2014144719-A1 is of particular relevance to the applicant’s disclosure and appears to disclose an electric device having a terminal section disposed on its outer surface, wherein the terminal section is inclined on a portion of the outer surface which portion faces upward relative to a body of a vehicle (see figure 22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6087. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. (7:30 - 5:00 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571) 272-2706. 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.
/MATTHEW D LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights